Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 21:19

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 18:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 17:00
Posts: 18
Quote:
If we make drivers a tiny little bit less attentive to a risk ahead with our national "speed kills" policy, it should be easy to see that average accident severity might well increase because the attention effect swamps the speed effect.


But there's no evidence that drivers who ignore speed limits have
fewer / less severe accidents than drivers who drive legally. The majority
of insurance companies treat a driver with a string of speeding convictions as a greater risk than a driver with a clean license.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 19:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
EvilInky wrote:
Quote:
If we make drivers a tiny little bit less attentive to a risk ahead with our national "speed kills" policy, it should be easy to see that average accident severity might well increase because the attention effect swamps the speed effect.


But there's no evidence that drivers who ignore speed limits have
fewer / less severe accidents than drivers who drive legally. The majority
of insurance companies treat a driver with a string of speeding convictions as a greater risk than a driver with a clean license.


Point one - this is a total change of subject, so I've moved your latest message to a more suitable forum.

Point two - Insurance companies are reducing the loading against drivers with speeding convictions.

Point three - The correlation between speeding convictions and excessive speed accidents no longer exists in any useful form. I believe it did in the past, but can't offer evidence. See http://www.safespeed.org.uk/wrong.html

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 09:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 17:00
Posts: 18
SafeSpeed wrote:
EvilInky wrote:
Quote:
If we make drivers a tiny little bit less attentive to a risk ahead with our national "speed kills" policy, it should be easy to see that average accident severity might well increase because the attention effect swamps the speed effect.


But there's no evidence that drivers who ignore speed limits have
fewer / less severe accidents than drivers who drive legally. The majority
of insurance companies treat a driver with a string of speeding convictions as a greater risk than a driver with a clean license.


Point one - this is a total change of subject, so I've moved your latest message to a more suitable forum.


You're the moderator...

Quote:
Point two - Insurance companies are reducing the loading against drivers with speeding convictions.


They may be reducing the loadings, but they still treat a driver with a string of speeding convictions as a greater risk than a driver with a clean
license. You are claiming that drivers who habitually get caught speeding are safer ( not as safe as ) drivers who drive legally. There isn't a single insurance company in the UK which reduces premiums for drivers with points on their license. This flies in the face of your claim that the scofflaws have fewer accidents than the law-abiding.

Quote:
Point three - The correlation between speeding convictions and excessive speed accidents no longer exists in any useful form. I believe it did in the past, but can't offer evidence. See http://www.safespeed.org.uk/wrong.html


So you claim there is an inverse relationship between speeding convictions and excessive speed accidents, but can't produce any evidence to back it up. I've produced evidence from the insurance industry ( who should know a thing or two about risk ) that speeding convictions are correlated to more accidents.

Law Abiding Driver 1 Speedophile 0


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Evilinky,

I don't think you have even begun to think this through.

Yes. Typical drivers with more speeding convictions have a higher annual accident risk. That's because of exposure - higher mileage drivers are more exposed to both speeding convictions and accident risks.

And there are plenty of nutters out there with massive accident risk and dangerous habits. Sadly, although they do get caught by speed camera, they are not the typical catch. However since their accident risks are very high - maybe 5 to 10 times higher than average - the insurance companies still have a chance to use this data to load the premiums of typical speeding convicted drivers.

The more we go on like this, the poorer the correlation will be between accident risk and conviction risk. That's bad for everyone.

We need intelligent Police patrols spotting the nutters and dealing with them. Just like we used to have in fact.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 17:00
Posts: 18
SafeSpeed wrote:
Evilinky,

I don't think you have even begun to think this through.


In light of some of your comments below, this is a clear-cut case
of the pot calling the kettle black.

Quote:
Yes. Typical drivers with more speeding convictions have a higher annual accident risk. That's because of exposure - higher mileage drivers are more exposed to both speeding convictions and accident risks.

Tripe. High mileage drivers are exposed to more speeding convictions in the same way people who do a lot of shopping are exposed to shoplifting convictions. It's perfectly possible to spends hours a day shopping and never get caught stealing anything, just as it is possible to drive tens of thousands of miles a year, and never get caught speeding.
Quote:
And there are plenty of nutters out there with massive accident risk and dangerous habits. Sadly, although they do get caught by speed camera, they are not the typical catch. However since their accident risks are very high - maybe 5 to 10 times higher than average - the insurance companies still have a chance to use this data to load the premiums of typical speeding convicted drivers.

The more we go on like this, the poorer the correlation will be between accident risk and conviction risk. That's bad for everyone.

We need intelligent Police patrols spotting the nutters and dealing with them. Just like we used to have in fact.


We still have traffic police you know. And if your beef is with the reduction
in traffic police numbers, you should campaign for more traffic police, not against speed cameras. ( Unless of course you don't give a toss about road safety at all, and just want to rocket around in your silly Max Power-mobile without getting points on your license, which I am beginning to suspect is your real motive for your campaign for the effective abolition of speed limits. )


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
EvilInky wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Yes. Typical drivers with more speeding convictions have a higher annual accident risk. That's because of exposure - higher mileage drivers are more exposed to both speeding convictions and accident risks.

Tripe. High mileage drivers are exposed to more speeding convictions in the same way people who do a lot of shopping are exposed to shoplifting convictions. It's perfectly possible to spends hours a day shopping and never get caught stealing anything, just as it is possible to drive tens of thousands of miles a year, and never get caught speeding.


I hope and pray that drivers never stop speeding. There's no sign of it so far. If they did it would mean that the responsible majority had given up the task of selecting an appropriate speed according to the conditions, and that would be truly frightening. As we've tended to move in this direction, we've already lost the trend in the accident rates.

Your analogy is also flawed because virtually all drivers speed while no "shoppers" shoplift. Laws have to be accepted by the majority to be fair and to be enforceable.

EvilInky wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
We need intelligent Police patrols spotting the nutters and dealing with them. Just like we used to have in fact.


We still have traffic police you know. And if your beef is with the reduction
in traffic police numbers, you should campaign for more traffic police, not against speed cameras.


Both the speed camera and the loss of traffic police are results of the same broken thinking at the DfT. It's the broken thinking that needs fixing.

Your posts are bordering on abusive and libellous. Keep a lid on it, and discuss the issues please.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 13:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 17:00
Posts: 18
SafeSpeed wrote:
I hope and pray that drivers never stop speeding. There's no sign of it so far. If they did it would mean that the responsible majority had given up the task of selecting an appropriate speed according to the conditions, and that would be truly frightening. As we've tended to move in this direction, we've already lost the trend in the accident rates.

So, since I don't speed, I've "given up on the task of selecting an appropriate speed", have I ? Are you really suggesting that since I
stick to the speed limits, I'm a more dangerous driver than a boy racer in a souped-up old banger with nine points on his license ?

And by definition, a speeding driver hasn't selected an appropriate speed. He's selected an illegal one.

Quote:
Your posts are bordering on abusive and libellous. Keep a lid on it, and discuss the issues please.

I've indulged in some mild joshing, and speculated about the underlying motives behind your campaign, and you respond by calling me a dangerous driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 13:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
EvilInky wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
I hope and pray that drivers never stop speeding. There's no sign of it so far. If they did it would mean that the responsible majority had given up the task of selecting an appropriate speed according to the conditions, and that would be truly frightening. As we've tended to move in this direction, we've already lost the trend in the accident rates.

So, since I don't speed, I've "given up on the task of selecting an appropriate speed", have I ? Are you really suggesting that since I
stick to the speed limits, I'm a more dangerous driver than a boy racer in a souped-up old banger with nine points on his license ?


Mr Evil, your logic is completely broken. :) Do you work for the DfT by any chance?

Just because forcing drivers to stick to the speed limit would be dangerous nationally does not imply that an individual is dangerous because he chooses to stick to the speed limit.

A dangerous boy racer is still a dangerous boy racer whether he's above the speed limit or below it.

EvilInky wrote:
And by definition, a speeding driver hasn't selected an appropriate speed. He's selected an illegal one.


You know very well that I was referring to an appropriate and safe speed with regard to the prevailing conditions. It's a common convention, and one that I accept and use frequently.

EvilInky wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Your posts are bordering on abusive and libellous. Keep a lid on it, and discuss the issues please.

I've indulged in some mild joshing, and speculated about the underlying motives behind your campaign, and you respond by calling me a dangerous driver.


You're mistaken. I didn't call you a dangerous driver. And I certainly don't campaign for the "effective abolition of speed limits" - I think that might well be libel. No problem, just be nice.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 15:21 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
:twisted:

Oh Evil Inked Up One!

I have clean driving licence - as does my wife and rest of the family!
As Advanced drivers we also get discounts for the extra "training"! Like Paul - we do not believe in speed cams as so-called road safety measure!

There is now an increasing majority of insurance companies who will not penalise for three points - because so many people now have them! Yup! We know it may sound unfair to you! But the insurance companies are now starting to be aware that if they make insurance unaffordable - we will see more uninsured drivers, and possibly they are recognising fact that these so-called speedsters were not only copped marginally over the posted, but also have accident-free history! Know of several that do this!
So I do not know where you get your information from. We get ours from the guy in the family who actually works in"Blue Chip" motor insurance company!

Paul is right - speed cams are as much use as a chocolate fireguard when it comes to road safety! Do they catch drunk drivers? NOPE! Drugged drivers? NOPE! Boy racers? Well - most boy racers would have nicked the car and the NIP goes to registered keeper - so NOPE!

High mileage drivers are exposed to more speeding convictions as "just overs!" more than OTT speeding! As for your comment about shoppers never getting copped shoplifting - are you implying that my shopaholoc wife goes out nicking things? You do not shoplift as result of slight foot fluctuation! You do that deliberately! :roll:

You say "We still have traffic police!" Er? Where are they? We do not see them on the road - but see lots of scams and talivans instead!

You say you do not speed? Really? We are advanced RoSPA Gold standards in this family (the whole family! ), and we know we have drifted marginally over a speed limit on many occasions! How do you know you have not drifted over by say 5mph! Very easy on slight downward gradient. Are you always aware of road surfaces? They can affect your speed!

My wife and family regularly post to other fora! We have never seen any person campaign for abolition of speed limits! Only for safe driving skills which are being compromised by proliferation of speed cameras! My wife commented on another forum that we are in danger of teaching people to look out for only one type of hazard on the road - the yellow scam box!

You drive to road conditions! Simple! But this should not mean that people should be criminalised for driving up to 6mph over a posted speed limit as a blip in concentration! If you reply and tell me that you never ever drive at 1mph over the posted - you will be telling us FIBBLES! :wink:

Edited for some typos! (Well - am a medical man!)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 16:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 17:00
Posts: 18
Mad Moggie wrote:
:twisted:


Paul is right - speed cams are as much use as a chocolate fireguard when it comes to road safety! Do they catch drunk drivers? NOPE! Drugged drivers? NOPE! Boy racers? Well - most boy racers would have nicked the car and the NIP goes to registered keeper - so NOPE!

And aspirin doesn't cure cancer. Better ban that as well :)
Quote:
High mileage drivers are exposed to more speeding convictions as "just overs!" more than OTT speeding! As for your comment about shoppers never getting copped shoplifting - are you implying that my shopaholoc wife goes out nicking things? You do not shoplift as result of slight foot fluctuation! You do that deliberately! :roll:

Speeding is as deliberate as shoplifting. You are ( or should be ) in control
of your car. If you are unable to drive in a legal manner, perhaps you should consider some extra driving lessons. My car ( Toyota Corolla ) comes equipped with both a speedometer and an accelerator pedal. Correct use of these devices allows me to remain under the speed limit at all times. It's not exactly rocket science.

And shoplifters aren't responsible for hundreds of deaths a year. Speeding drivers are.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 17:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 17:00
Posts: 18
SafeSpeed wrote:

Mr Evil, your logic is completely broken. :) Do you work for the DfT by any chance?

Just because forcing drivers to stick to the speed limit would be dangerous nationally does not imply that an individual is dangerous because he chooses to stick to the speed limit.


So I'm not a dangerous driver, but it would be dangerous if everybody chose to drive the way I do ? I'm having problems following your logic here.

Quote:
You're mistaken. I didn't call you a dangerous driver.

You didn't call me a dangerous driver, but you say the roads would be more dangerous if more people drove like me. I can't see the distinction.
Quote:
And I certainly don't campaign for the "effective abolition of speed limits" - I think that might well be libel. No problem, just be nice.


It doesn't appear to be libel to me. You want to get rid of speed cameras. Getting rid of speed cameras will mean many more drivers will get away with speeding, just as many more drivers would get away with drink-driving if the breathalyser was abolished. We could argue whether or not that would constitute "effective abolition" in either case, but it seems that way to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 17:42 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
EvilInky wrote:
Mad Moggie wrote:
:twisted:


Paul is right - speed cams are as much use as a chocolate fireguard when it comes to road safety! Do they catch drunk drivers? NOPE! Drugged drivers? NOPE! Boy racers? Well - most boy racers would have nicked the car and the NIP goes to registered keeper - so NOPE!

And aspirin doesn't cure cancer. Better ban that as well :)
Quote:
High mileage drivers are exposed to more speeding convictions as "just overs!" more than OTT speeding! As for your comment about shoppers never getting copped shoplifting - are you implying that my shopaholoc wife goes out nicking things? You do not shoplift as result of slight foot fluctuation! You do that deliberately! :roll:

Speeding is as deliberate as shoplifting. You are ( or should be ) in control
of your car. If you are unable to drive in a legal manner, perhaps you should consider some extra driving lessons. My car ( Toyota Corolla ) comes equipped with both a speedometer and an accelerator pedal. Correct use of these devices allows me to remain under the speed limit at all times. It's not exactly rocket science.

And shoplifters aren't responsible for hundreds of deaths a year. Speeding drivers are.



No - but they are responsible for loss of revenue for the shopkeeper - who may commit suicide if he goes bust because of them!

Do we detect sour grapes here? Corolla eh! Well - you could not speed in one of those! (Little green monsters from some of your rantings eh :wink: )

As for your crack about aspirin and cancer - I am a doctor of medicine (blood and virus man), and would say that moderate use of aspirin can help relieve some of the pain for some cancer patients!

As for your crack at my driving - well - we took the trouble to do extra driver training! We can, in truth, hold a car at any speed without a waver! We do actually drive legally and with utmost courtesy at all times! We do admit, that there have been occasions when we may have drifted marginally over a posted limit - due to camber of road, gradient, etc, all of which is corrected at time!

Nobody is perfect - and if you try to tell me (or anyone else on the internet otherwise) then besides having fuddled logic, you are also guilty of "fibbling"!

Have you taken any further driver training? Can you swear on the BIBLE - on OATH (We are devout Christians) that you NEVER EVER SPEED! I want you to answer my question - and not reply to me with some kind of biased assumption about the standard of our driving skills just because we question the logic of the speed camera. (Our take on road safety is driver training and flashing responsible smiley sids - reinforced by speed cam in really dangerous spots to catch the proper numpties!)

You cannot possibly be 100% certain that you have never ever broken a speed limit even in a Corolla - my Moggie Thou can do it quite easily! If you are so certain, and you are convinced you are such a safe driver - then you are much more dangerous than the so-called speedsters you condemn! COMPLACENT DRIVERS ARE THE MOST DANGEROUS and you come across as one such!

We learn something new on the road every day - and we drive prepared to learn something new every day as well! We show utmost courtesy at all times, and whilst we admit we will have drifted marginally over a speed limit on occasions, we do on aggregate drive according to the rules and road conditions!

Speed cameras detect speed - not the numpty behind the wheel - and from my time in Casualty I can honestly say that more accidents were caused by complacent, drunk and drugged numpties than anything else!

Poor driving standards are detectable by trafpols alone! Locals know where the cams are, drivers such as myself and the WildCat wife will spot them anyway, the wide boys will slow for the camera and then speed off again! And people like you, Evil Inked Up One, could find themselves getting prosecuted for 2mph over - cos I suspect your old Corolla's speedo may not be as accurate as you so smugly think! (Joint-Owner of several 1960s classics!)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 17:49 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
EvilInky wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:

It doesn't appear to be libel to me. You want to get rid of speed cameras. Getting rid of speed cameras will mean many more drivers will get away with speeding, just as many more drivers would get away with drink-driving if the breathalyser was abolished. We could argue whether or not that would constitute "effective abolition" in either case, but it seems that way to me.


Oh Evil Inked Up One!

The drunk drivers do indeed get away with it - because the trafpols are not out there with their producers!

Check out the Lancashire Safety Partenrships' site. More scams than anywhere else, plus training course (cuts off at 35mph and misses out the real numpties). Their KSIs are UP! They admit due to DRINK DRIVING, POOR DRIVING! INATTENTIVE DRIVING!

Why is this?

Because they rely on speed cameras to catch out people driving at 31mph to 35 mph to pay them almost £100 each for a Speed Awareness Course, and have very few trafpols on the road. (And what few they have cause accidents in their police chases - and then that is their excuse to whack up yet another scam because they added to statistics!) :roll:

You really must get a grip on your logic, Oh Evil Inked Up One! :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:33 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:56
Posts: 11
EvilInky,

I would like you to read this post by a contributor to the excellent pepipoo forum which has been on the go for some time now.

Some of you may have already read this.

Observer wrote:
Neither I nor, I believe, most sensible drivers object to speed limits (we may grumble about limits which seem to have no justifiable road safety purpose); or, within reasonable limits, speed cameras and other methods of speed enforcement. The problem I have, and I think most speed camera opponents would share, if they addressed their mind specifically to the point, is the SCALE of the enforcement activity combined with the indiscriminate nature of the enforcement systems that are now in widespread use.

It only takes a moment's thought to realise that speed limits are not, never have been and never will be anything but a guide to safe speed. In absolute terms, it is reasonable to estimate that millions of speeding offences occur every single day (counting every discrete occasion on which any vehicle, anywhere, exceeds a posted speed limit), but only a vanishingly small percentage of them result in actual harm. If "speed kills" (meaning speed above a posted limit), we would be measuring fatalities in the hundreds of thousands or millions per annum.

Speeding is an absolute offence and it is understandable that it must be so, because enforcement would be almost impossible if it were not. Therefore (unless one takes the view that a crime is a crime only if the offence is detected), there are millions of criminal speeders (reportedly 99% of the driving population) whose culpability in law depends on no more than luck and/or their ability to avoid detection. If it was possible to detect all incidences of 'speeding' and enforce the law accordingly, it is clear that very few drivers would retain their licences for more than a few weeks or even days. If speeding really represents the danger to public safety that the 'speed kills' lobby would have us believe, that would be a desirable outcome. In fact, that would be an absurd result which would be hugely damaging to the country as a whole. (This is not the case with other crimes; for example, if it was possible to detect all incidences of burglary or theft and enforce accordingly, that WOULD be in the public good.) So, in establishing and maintaining this system of law, it must follow that the state (consciously or sub-consciously) acknowledges that it is NOT the legal definition of the offence itself, but the scope and scale of activity employed to detect offences and punish offenders, that defines the real boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour. Put another way, it is not exceeding the speed limit which represents the crime but whether the speed limit is exceeded so frequently or flagrantly or unsafely that, at a given level of detectablility of the offences and enforceability of the law, the offender is detected and prosecuted. Therefore, speeding is a "technical" offence.

Hitherto (before widespread use of automated speed detection), a (hypothetical) reasonable careful and reasonably competent driver, who exceeded the speed limit from time to time where the conditions were safe to do so, may well have avoided detection for speeding during an entire driving career without causing harm or alarm to anybody; although, on simple application of law, he would have been guilty of numerous criminal offences. The reason he would have escaped detection and conviction is that the narrow legal definition of the technical offence was balanced by the limitations of the previously existing detection and enforcement mechanisms so that, give or take a bit, the level of detection and punishment of offenders was proportionate to the harm which the offence actually caused. The introduction of systems which, on a previously unimagined scale, are able to detect the 'technical' offences, together with corresponding law enforcement systems, has destroyed that balance and re-defined the boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour.

In the binary world of speed enforcement, there can be no distinction between those people who exceed a speed limit and are detected, prosecuted and convicted, and those (reducing in number) who exceed a speed limit and are not caught. Each is equally culpable. Speaking in the House of Commons on 8.12.2003, Caroline Flint, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said: "There is no doubt that speeding is a serious criminal offence". Therefore (if the reported figures are correct and, from observation, I do not think it a wild exaggeration), 99% of drivers are serious criminals. This is complete nonsense. The competent and careful actions of a majority of responsible people should obviously be considered legal (unknown author acknowledged). But, according to law, they are not. If, as acknowledged earlier, it is necessary to retain the existing legal definition of a speeding offence in order to preserve a reasonable degree of enforceability, it becomes clear that the pre-existing boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour must be restored by removing speed cameras altogether (or drastically reducing their number) or by some other adjustment to the detection and enforcement mechanisms.

The state has re-drawn the boundary of criminal behaviour and seeks to turn a majority of its citzens into serious criminals. That is a bizarre but unavoidable conclusion. We, the public, must turn back the tide. That could be achieved if a sufficiently large number of enforcement targets do no more than require the state to meet the ordinary standards of procedure and evidence which apply in all criminal cases.

The more adventurous among us can and should go further by using every trivial and non-trivial legal device available to frustrate the enforcement process.

_________________
cheers,
DM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:01 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 17:00
Posts: 18
DeMolay,
The point of speed limit enforcement is not to criminalise 99% of drivers, it is to convince those drivers to comply with the speed limit. Most rational people would rather adjust their behaviour and keep their license rather than continue to flout the law and lose it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:14 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:44
Posts: 485
Location: Glos, UK
EvilInky wrote:
Most rational people would rather adjust their behaviour and keep their license rather than continue to flout the law and lose it.

Why, in that case, are the numbers of people prosecuted for speeding rising through the roof? Why are more people expected to be caught speeding this year than any other year in history? Why do we have so many people with more than 3 points?

_________________
Carl Prescott


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:22 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
EvilInky wrote:
DeMolay,
The point of speed limit enforcement is not to criminalise 99% of drivers, it is to convince those drivers to comply with the speed limit. Most rational people would rather adjust their behaviour and keep their license rather than continue to flout the law and lose it.



Well - it is not working! The better way of ensuring people become more aware of speed limits is via on-going training, Smiley Sids flashing up speed limits to remind people as they tootle along at 1-5mph over, and fine only those who dangerously speed!

Anyroad, Evil Inked Up One - You have not answered my question!

Can you be so sure your speedo is accurate?

Can you be so sure that you have NEVER EVER drifted over a posted limit?

I doubt it! :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:29 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
EvilInky wrote:
DeMolay,
The point of speed limit enforcement is not to criminalise 99% of drivers


If that is the case, Inky, then the current mode of speed enforcement is an abject failure, because the statistics for the skyrocketing increase in penalties being issued show that it is extremely effective at doing what you state is not its point, while the downward trend for deaths and serious injuries on the roads has stalled and looks to be on the increase.

EvilInky wrote:
Most rational people would rather adjust their behaviour and keep their license rather than continue to flout the law and lose it.


Not at all. Most rational people would question the motives of a system that is supposed to reduce road casualties but doesn't, yet disproportionately does dip their pockets on an ever increasing basis. It is very easy to see why - most speed limits are set lower than the safe speeds for the roads. There is plenty and varied research to back this up, but to comply with the findings of such research would take away from the speed camera enforcement methodology of today the ability to turn a profit. Simple as that.

No one here is supporting excessive use of speed. Everyone one bar yourself is advocating intelligent road safety based on more than just the preumption that lower speeds make you safer.

If you are happy to drive significantly more slowly than you have to for no good real reason except to permit the powers that be to make money from someone more intelligent than you and you accept that without question then I pity you.


Last edited by r11co on Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:40, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 17:00
Posts: 18
CarlP wrote:
EvilInky wrote:
Most rational people would rather adjust their behaviour and keep their license rather than continue to flout the law and lose it.

Why, in that case, are the numbers of people prosecuted for speeding rising through the roof? Why are more people expected to be caught speeding this year than any other year in history? Why do we have so many people with more than 3 points?


Since speed camera only catch the stupid, I suggest that the answer to your question is that there are plenty of stupid drivers out there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 17:00
Posts: 18
[quote="Mad Moggie]
Anyroad, Evil Inked Up One - You have not answered my question!

Can you be so sure your speedo is accurate?

Can you be so sure that you have NEVER EVER drifted over a posted limit?

I doubt it! :wink:[/quote]

I'm satisfied that my speedo is reasonably accurate - my car's only five years old, and I've never been flagged down by the police and been told I've been doing 70 when my speedo was reading 55.

I have exceeded the posted limit in the past, but like most of us, I did a lot of stupid things when I was younger. If I'd been caught speeding though, I've have taken my punishment like a man, not whined about it like a spoilt child.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.241s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]