The Sunday Times - Driving
November 23, 2003
Speeding fines: A driver?s tale: 26 points and a police record
Home Office figures due early next year are expected to show a rise of around 30% in just 12 months in the numbers of drivers disqualified. The jump, insiders say, is a result of drivers reaching 12 penalty points under the totting-up system, rather than immediate disqualifications for drunk or dangerous driving.
The rapid rise is causing consternation among legal experts who know the law is based on widespread acceptance. If it catches too many people, and they think they have been penalised unreasonably, it becomes unenforceable.
Richard North is a typical victim. From his BMW 5-series to his elegant country home North is the epitome of respectability. So it surprised his neighbours when police pulled up on his drive in July with an arrest warrant for non-payment of speeding fines. He has made four court appearances in less than three years and he has accumulated 26 penalty points on his driving licence. ?I am an ordinary man who is being criminalised,? he says.
For years, North says, he has driven with an unblemished record. All that changed with speed cameras. As a consultant to the European parliament he flies regularly to Brussels and Strasbourg. The drive to and from his Yorkshire home to one of the London airports or the Channel tunnel terminal is a 700-mile round trip, often at night or early in the morning. ?It is a long journey but if I don?t do it I don?t see my family,? he says.
The last time North had an accident was when he clipped a parked car in 1976. But then, three years ago, he reached nine points under the totting-up system and found himself fighting for his licence. Within months he had appeared in front of the judge on four separate occasions in Dewsbury, Huddersfield, Derby and Barnsley to plead not to be disqualified. Twice he escaped. Each time, a further speeding offence landed him back in court. On the third occasion he was banned for 12 months, reduced to three on appeal. When his patience ran out he complained to the West Yorkshire s************ partnership there were too many cameras and in the wrong places, a claim the partnership strongly denies. He was given the brush-off. After an acrimonious correspondence he was told by the partnership?s PR manager, Philip Gwynne, in an e-mail: "Would I be right in thinking you?re a close-minded (sic) bigot who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the a***?"
It seems that while North feels criminalised, others have sympathy. At his last court appearance in Barnsley, North persuaded magistrates he was indeed a responsible driver. The court took the unusual step of imposing a driving ban to run concurrent with the ban another court had imposed just two weeks earlier.
?I know it sounds like an excuse,? says North, ?but I am just a hard-working professional who drives a lot of miles. Speed cameras
Ho Hum - pasted in full for Ian (CT) and others.
|
|
Why does the ST describe someone trying to make a point as a "victim". I am of course assuming a consultant working internationally has the intellectual capacity to learn from his own experience.
|
If they are so confident that driving over the speed limit is responsible for 30% [sic] of accidents, then how do they justify not using that certainty to ensure prosecution of the offending driver for careless driving or whatever in 30% of those incidents ?
Presumably if they are so sure that they are right that the speed cameras are appearing everywhere, then their evidence should be sufficient ?
Or is their evidence strong enough for them to justify themselves to each other, but sadly at a level that any court would reject ?
|
Anybody see the report in the Torygraph today about 165 speed cameras likely to be removed under plans to site them only at accident blackspots where there have been at least four collisions resulting in death or serious injury or eight collisions involving personal injury within three years.
Where is this miracle happening.
The Scottish Executive seem to have got it sorted. Maybe they\'ve raised enough to pay for their Parliament (or am I just an old cynic.)
|
|
The Times today carries a story which asks you to report any poorly sited cameras to the dept of transport.
|
|
Sorry, should have made that clearer - the DoT have asked for poorly sited cameras to be reported to them...
|
|
|
|
Mark,
One answer may be that they cannot prove thier statistics?
As posted in a reply to PoloGirl today - the most comprehensive study on accidents by the Transport Research Laboratory - TRL323 - is only available in hard copy or to download in pdf form for £25-00 - source is the safespeed website which has a lot on the subject.
It is surely nonsense that a report, paid for by US to a Government department, should not be available free in the interest of road safety?
|
There appears to be an inverse correlation regarding the number of speed cameras and detection rates for crime.
I glanced at the performance tables for police force detection rates, which were published in the Telegraph a few weeks ago, and I noticed that some of the worst performers were the Lincolnshire and North Wales forces, both of which have absurdly high numbers of cameras.
It would be interesting to do a more scientific analysis and see if there is a definite correlation. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the performance figures in order to do this.
|
|
|
" One answer may be that they cannot prove thier statistics?
As posted in a reply to PoloGirl today - the most comprehensive study on accidents by the Transport Research Laboratory - TRL323 is only available in hard copy or to download in pdf form for £25-00 - source is the safespeed website which has a lot on the subject.
It is surely nonsense that a report, paid for by US to a Government department, should not be available free in the interest of road safety?"
The issue of whether the report should be free or not is irrelevant unless we are discussing freedom of information which is a wider issue and not particularly related to motoring.
If the report were not freely available, albeit at a price, then I might agree with you that it's contents are being surpressed, but clearly they are not.
What amazes me is that this TRL 323 is the most comprehensive study tosh is still being bandied about. NO IT IS NOT THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE STUDY!!!!!!!!
The project of which report TRL 323 is part of the output was NOT designed to give statistically true figures of accident causation. The project task was a study of how to collect data. The study used a sample of accidents from a sample of areas in order to test the data collection system. This was not a statistically representative sample of all accidents and therefore it is not possible to make general comments about accident causation in anything other than that unrepresentative small sample of accidents which happened to be selected.
The accident classification system which this report devised is being used to look at more representative samples and draw conclusions which have a better chance of being representative than the snapshot taken in TRL323.
Why not take a look at.
TRL 421 "The effects of drivers? speed on the frequency of road accidents" is more recent than 323 and totally relevant. Not going to quote statistics but the project examined 300 sections of road, made ~2 million observations re speed and questioned 10,000 drivers. One result of this independent research project , the faster the traffic moves on average in a particular set of circumstances, the more crashes there are. The consequences of the accident tends to rise with the speed and weight of the vehicles involved.
Or even
TRL 474 "Police fatal road accidents report phase II" Again this did not attempt to find a causative factor for accidents but was a report in setting up a database to collate police reports after fatal accidents and then apply a classification system which could be used in conjunction with Stats19, the DETR accident database which is very limited in its analytical possibilities. But nevertheless the frequency tables make interesting reading.
For example much bigger population of results than in 323, BUT the results are skewed by deliberately selecting accidents at the more severe end of the spectrum. Just as a taster around 36%+ plus of these accidents have as a major causation factor careless/reckless driving. Over 30% have XS speed as a major causation factor, these are as decided by the AIB officer during his investigation.
Noting this it is interesting that the message has changed from one third of all accidents to approximately one third of serious accidents.
If, like me, you accept the independance of the TRL in its work eg report TRL323, then surely you must also accept the information contained within the reports I've mentioned as representative. Reports again freely available, for a fee I admit.
Now don't get me wrong, I hate cameras and the way they are being applied in many cases with a passion. In some cases cameras can and do work, but in the majority they do not. If you want to complain about information being withheld then complain about how it's impossible to get information out of the S-camera partnerships.
One SCP has a target of £7m of revenue from fines. How I know is my business, but unfortunately the information is not officially in the pulic domain.
\rant mode off
Sorry about that I'll be better after a lie down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"But then, three years ago, he reached nine points under the totting-up system and found himself fighting for his licence. Within months he had appeared in front of the judge on four separate occasions in Dewsbury, Huddersfield, Derby and Barnsley to plead not to be disqualified."
The point of human intelligence is that it allows one to learn from one's mistooks..
The gentleman concerned has obviously got a mental block as far as speeding is concerned and altho'I am no lover of speed cameras - yes too many badly sited ones- he appears to learn nuffing so gets wot he disserfs..
Consultants? hmm my opinion of them was low.. tell you what to do when they can't do it themsleves -(see a certain Mr W Hague MP,,,,wgo designed a sistem wot could not elect a leeder if it tryed:-)
madf
|
I don't understand why, when there are so many measures to make cameras more and more visible, more and more people are being caught because they didn't notice the big grey box with the red-and-yellow stripes on it (where I live, anyway - I'm sure colour schemes vary), or pay any attention to the signs warning of the speed limit in force and the presence of cameras.
Makes me wonder if they would be paying anough attention to notice that child about to wander off the pavement.....
|
As regards the \"one third of accidents caused by speed\" lie. I got this gem from Cleveland Polices Q A site....
A TRL report has stated that only 7% of crashes are due to excessive speed, when Government publicity says speed is a contributory factor in about a third of all crashes. Why is the Government so obsessed with speeding when it is bad driving that is the real problem?
The TRL report A New System for Recording Contributory Factors in Road Accident is about contributory factors in accidents in the context of a new accident data recording system being brought into STATS 19. Speed as a contributory factor is shown in the report to occur in about 7% of accidents, whilst we normally quote about one third. This apparent disparity can be explained. Excessive speed as a causation factor may be coded for any one of the following reasons:
Excessive speed for the limit
Excessive speed for the vehicle (e.g. LGV)
Excess speed for the conditions
Although speed was not always shown as a factor in the pilot schemes, which is what the report is about, speed is clearly a factor when the causes are shown as any of the following:
Sudden braking
Careless/reckless driving
Following too close
Behaviour ? in a hurry
Loss of control of a vehicle
Poor overtaking, etc.
Adding up these factors the report effectively confirms the ?One third? figure
So basically, its pink fluffy dice! Check out other such whoppers at www.clevelandsafetycameras.co.uk/questions.html
Particularly interesting are one sided scare tactics, like if you go to court you could be fined £1000, no mention of you could win!!
|
|
|
It is a silly suggestion that because someone might inadvertently speed past a camera, then they are not concentrating enough to see a child on a pavement...
More and more people are being caught because of the proliferation of cameras, and cameras being sited for maximum revenue rather than safety.
|
|
|
|
|
Home Office figures due early next year are expected to show a rise of around 30% in just 12 months in the numbers of drivers disqualified. The jump, insiders say, is a result of drivers reaching 12 penalty points under the totting-up system, rather than immediate disqualifications for drunk or dangerous driving.
According to Peter Oborne writing in tonight's London Standard former transport minister Peter Bottomley is presently being driven by his wife for precisely this reason!!!
|
Noticed today on the M8 between Edinburgh and Glasgow, where the roadworks were at Bathgate junction, the roadworks have been removed but the speed cameras are still there!!!
Wonder if they are still on?
Wonder if they are still collecting revenue...
Definitely NO "50" signs anywhere !!
Or am I just being a cynic..
|
I'm waiting for the time when in court over driving without due care a drivers says - "I didn't see them I was watching my speed!". It's just got to happen!
How many drivers who 'never break the law', park dangerously, illegally, don't buy a ticket? Never check their lights before setting off, drive around in clear weather with their front/rear fogs on or even drank under age, went back to the shop to tell them they've been undercharged?
See a pattern here?
Not in my back yard!
Steve.
|
On a slightly different note, I have now found myself checking my rear view mirror after I pass a camera, to see if anyone else has been caught by it.
Actually wasn't aware I did it until today - but am I the only one who does this? Or do speed cameras mean that you have a line of traffic passing through them but all the drivers looking behind them??
|
|
I see today that a speedcam case against Christine Hamilton has been thrown out as she couldn't be sure whether she or Neil were driving.
|
"It is a silly suggestion that because someone might inadvertently speed past a camera, then they are not concentrating enough to see a child on a pavement..."
Why, exactly, is this silly? If they're being observant enough to see other potential hazards why don't they see the speed limit signs, the camera warning signs, and the brightly-coloured cameras?
On the recurring theme of statistics, has anyone investigated what proportion of accidents are categorised as caused by "insufficent speed", and therefore what positive effect an increase in vehicle speeds would have on safety......?
|
On the recurring theme of statistics, has anyone investigated what proportion of accidents are categorised as caused by "insufficent speed", and therefore what positive effect an increase in vehicle speeds would have on safety......?
Not sure what you mean by insufficient speed?
I would suspect that such an accident would be coded
Precipitating factor
4 Failed to avoid vehicle or object in carriageway
plus causation factor
12 Failed to judge another person's path or speed
If anyone wants the full list of precipitation and causation factors then I can post / mail.
|
If anyone wants the full list>
Yes please FiF if not too much trouble. Tks in Adv. Phil I
|
FiF,
Me too - thanks.
Matt35
|
Re: Full list.
OK gents will take me a while to type it up.
As the Governor of California once said "I'll be back!"
|
Right here goes, long post hope the formatting comes out OK.
Sorry about the cynical comment on causation factor No54 couldn't resist.
Any questions don't ask me!
There are some odd and / or specific categories which raise some questions I know. Equally, in my humble opinion, one can think of categories that are not included and the number of categories particularly in relation to pedestrians / cyclists definitely seem a bit sparse.
Don't blame me I report as found. Furthermore this may have been developed further in the last couple of years since 2000. Regardless personally interesting I thought.
PRECIPITATING FACTORS (WHAT WENT WRONG?)
FAILURES OF DRIVER/RIDER
1 Failed to stop (mandatory sign)
2 Failed to give way
3 Failed to avoid pedestrian (pedestrian not to blame)
4 Failed to avoid vehicle or object in carriageway
5 Failure to signal/misleading signal
6 Loss of control of vehicle
FAILURES OF PEDESTRIAN OR PASSENGER
7 Pedestrian / pedal cyclist entered carriageway without due care (driver/rider not to blame)
8 Passenger fell in or near PSV
MANOEUVRES
9 Swerved to avoid object in carriageway
10 Sudden braking
11 Poor turn/ manoeuvre
12 Poor overtaking
13 Drove wrong way (e.g. one way street)
14 Opening door carelessly
15 OTHER (please supply details)
CAUSATION FACTORS (WHY?)
PERSONAL DETAILS
1 Impairment alcohol
2 Impairemnt drugs
3 Impairment fatigue
4 Impairment illness
5 Distraction stress / emotional state of mind
6 Distraction physical in / on vehicle
7 Distraction physical outside vehicle
8 Behaviour panic
9 Behavious careless / thoughtless / reckless
10 Behaviour nervous / uncertain
11 Behaviour in a hurry
12 Failure to judge other person's path or speed
13 Disability
14 Failed to look
15 Looked but did not see
16 Inattention
17 Person hit wore dark or inconspicuous clothing
18 OTHER (please supply details)
PEDESTRIAN DETAILS
19 Crosses from behind parked vehicle etc
20 Ignored lights at crossing
DRIVER DETAILS
21 Excessive speed
22 Following too close
23 Inexperience of driving
24 Inexperience of vehicle
25 Interaction or competition with other road users
26 Aggressive driving
27 Lack of judgement of own path
VEHICLE DEFECTS
28 Tyres wrong pressure
29 Tyres deflation before impact
30 Tyres worn / insufficient tread
31 Defective lights or signals
32 Defective brakes
33 OTHER (please supply details)
LOCAL CONDITIONS
Site details:-
34 Poor road surface
35 Poor / no street lighting
36 Inadequate signing
37 Steep hill
38 Narrow road
39 Bend / winding road
40 Roadworks
41 Slippery road
42 High winds
43 Earlier accident
44 OTHER (please supply details)
OBSCURATION
45 View: windows obscured
46 View: glare from sun
47 View: glare from headlights
48 Surroundings: bend / winding road
49 Surroundings: stationary or parked vehicles
50 Surroundings: moving vehicle
51 Surroundings: buildings fences, vegetation etc
52 Weather (eg mist / sleet )
53 Failed to see pedestrian or vehicle in blindspot
ANIMAL INVOLVEMENT
54 Animal out of control (cynical FiF comment ~ to take care of the legendary black dog / cat running across road !!)
Four causation factors are defined in order of importance together with a confidence indicator code ie A = Definite B = Probable C = Possible
Seeing as this is the Speed camera thread there is also a comment re source of speed info eg tachograph, reconstruction, witnesses, driver.
|
|
"It is a silly suggestion that because someone might inadvertently speed past a camera, then they are not concentrating enough to see a child on a pavement..."
"Why, exactly, is this silly? If they're being observant enough to see other potential hazards why don't they see the speed limit signs, the camera warning signs, and the brightly-coloured cameras?"
Surely if they are looking for a kids' feet under a van they won't see the camera or sign (especially one of those new digital ones) up in the air above it? And which is more important, to make sure you don't fail to spot the kid the one time it's there? Or to make sure you don't fail to spot the sign and/or camera the one time it's there? To be absolutely sure you never ever miss any camera or sign you have to be looking round the high sided vehicles, into the hedges, behind the trees, etc, etc, 100% of the time. At speed sign/camara level. Doesn't leave much scope for spotting that low level kid in that million to one time it does run out in front of you. Or am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
I see today that a speedcam case against Christine Hamilton has been thrown out as she couldn't be sure whether she or Neil were driving.
Now isnt that funny, in the fake rape case they managed to prove who was doing what and where precisly by the minute!
|
|
|
|
BobbyG
Yes I do that, but to check if *I* have been flashed.
|
|
|
|
"Not in my back yard!"
Exactly - and vice versa - if it's wrong for the rest, then it's wrong for those who break the speed limit as well. How many accidents have been categorised as being caused by fog lights, not going back to the shop when undercharged, etc, etc.....
|
Roadworks just starting on M6 J34-J35 (again!!!!).
4 new Gatsos planted today, two northbound, two southbound.
The 50 limit is currently "black on yellow" signs, so advisory only.
Watch out for the mandatory limits in a few days....
|
Thanks for the warning re these ... I'm now doing this stretch of the M6 as part of my daily commute (at least I'll save some petrol going at 50)
These roadworks are due to take 8 months to complete!
Seb
|
"Or am I missing something?"
Maybe - if they can't take in everything relevant about their surroundings they could try going a bit slower....maybe even below the limit, then they wouldn't have to worry about cameras at all!
|
"Maybe - if they can't take in everything relevant about their surroundings they could try going a bit slower....maybe even below the limit, then they wouldn't have to worry about cameras at all!"
But however slow you go, you can't look at everything all of the time. So, what are you suggesting, concentrate on speed limit signs, speedometers, speed cameras, and ignore kids? Or divide your attention between them. And hope that you aren't looking at the former when the latter runs out into the road. And only gets injured (hopefully) at a pedestrian "friendly" full-on 20 mph.
Perhaps drive in reverse?
"Or am I (still) missing something?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
