You might not think so if you got a fine and two penalty point for doing 31mph (first category is 31-39mph according to Sky News a few minutes ago)...:-)
Why so many Government advisers hate the car so much is quite frightening.
Even more so when a report a few months ago revealed that speeding being the cause of accidents is only relevant in seven per cent of incidents.
Not that that percentage should be ignored, merely that it should be regarded in its proper context.
|
|
|
I have two opinions on this. Firstly, yes a great idea. But what are the penalties going to be set at? Is 38 going to be a high penaltly or 98?
Also, hasn't the government shot themselves in the foot? I was a wreckless, life disregarding joyrider this morning when I was doing 33 - so is that now ok and so only warrants a lesser penalty?
It seems to me they want to appease the people who hate cameras and think they do no good but keep on side the people who think they are good...all two of them.
Adam
|
>>when I was doing 33>>
You were probably doing exactly 30mph if you take the 10 per cent fast speedometer error into account..:-)
You can breathe again...
|
What is the difference between a store detective and a speed camera ? We wouldn't dream of painting a store detective yellow, so why do we paint cameras yellow ? And so many more comparisons......
The issue is neither the camera nor the fine. The issue is the limit which is being enforced.
This battle, argument, war - call it what you will - will rage on until people realise that the solution to a duff limit is not to insist that it is not enforced, or that it should have a lower penalty or that cameras are painted yellow or any other daft idea; The solution is to make the limit appropriate and then enforce it 100% by whatever method, stealth or otherwise.
People should be campaigning for appropriate limits, not lax/flawed enforcement or lower penalties.
|
Where I live there are speed cameras - not as many as in some other towns or areas - but their placement is a real puzzle.
All of them are situated on above average width 30mph roads which include, in the majority of cases, a grass verge between the road and several flagstones wide pavements - visibility is first class for both motorists and pedestrians.
Accidents have been very few and far between on these roads and quite a few have involved joyriders who have lost control of the vehicles. No amount of speed cameras will stop their antics.
In contrast many of the town's minor roads, most of which have residents' vehicles parked on both sides, leaving enough room for one car to use but not two in opposite directions until they reach a gap in between parked cars, see too many drivers travelling at up to 50mph on a regular basis.
Yet such dangerous driving is ignored by both the police and the local council to a large extent, although the council did bring in 20mph limits and speed humps in some outlying areas.
That's despite several quite serious accidents in mine and surrounding roads in recent years.
|
|
|
|
I was a wreckless, life disregarding joyrider this morning when I was doing 33 - so is that now ok and so only warrants a lesser penalty?
Well, if you were doing 33 when you knew the limit was 30, you were being irresponsible, and that judgment wouldn't change. The question the govt is asking is what the punishment should be when caught, and since 33 is less irresponsible than 45, it seems to me to be sensible that the punishment for 33 should be lighter.
But I'm sure that if you asked nicely, they'd still agree to give you the three points you would have got under the existing system :)
|
I fear you've missed the point there NW. In any case, I think Mark is right - the limits should be looked at. I'm going to get shouted at but this new proposal is not going to do anything. People will get penalised less for speeding so it stands to reason, they will do it more.
I'm reluctant to make this into another "is speeding right" but if I hit a kid at 30 and killed him, I don't think I could drive again. If I hit a kid at 45, I've still hit a kid, I've still done a bad thing. What happens if I hit a kid at 40 in a 40 limit?
I'm just wary of this and the chances are, we're going to see a lot more people prosecuted for 31mph. Whether this is right or not I don't know but please please please don't tell me that 31 is breaking the law and dangeous. Yes it's illegal, yes we all know the limit is 30. Dangerous? If you provide figures about studies in which 31mph killed a kid and 30 let him get up, dust himself off and say "sorry for running out mate" then I will never speed again.
Oh look - I did make it into another "is speeding right thread"...sorry.
Adam
|
The problem is not necessarily just that of setting the "right" speed limit for a particular road, but the variables involved.
A car's stopping distance depends on several factors including road conditions, driver reaction and whether the vehicle's condition, especially the braking system, is properly maintained.
In addition, all makes and models of vehicles have different stopping distances from a particular speed, making it more difficult to generalise.
|
Stuart, you beat me to it! Are we now going to see lower fines for cars built within the last year because they have better stopping distances than a 15 year old Maestro? Hmmm...wouldn't surprise me.
Adam
|
|
|
|
... and the chances are, we're going to see a lot more people prosecuted for 31mph. Whether this is right or not I don't know but please please please don't tell me that 31 is breaking the law and dangeous. Yes it's illegal, yes we all know the limit is 30.
Adam, I'm sure you know well that the difference betwen 30 and 31 isn't that great, and nor is the difference between 20 and 21 or 50 and 51. But that's not the point: either there is a limit, or there isn't.
Whether that limit is 5mph or 25mph or 50mph or 500mph, and whether or not it is variable (like the french autoroute-in-the-rain limits), there is a limit. That's a don't-go-beyond-this figure, not a target speed or a minimum speed or (as some folks seem to think) an I'm-entitled-to-drive-at-this-speed figure. It means "this is as fast as you can go if all the other conditions stack up, but you can never go faster".
For a while, we've had a degree of laxity in enforcement -- ostensibly to cope with the permitted inaccuarcies in speedometers, but also for evidential reasons. So we've had the 10%+2 threshold.
That has its merits, but in practice it has been abused, because too many drivers know about the threshold, and drive to it. So some tightening up is long overdue, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it coming. If you have worries about exceeding the limit, then create your own margin-of-error, and aim for 25 rather than 30, or get a car with a speed-limiter.
If you break the limit by a teensy bit, then the govt is suggesting that the punishment should be less than if you break it by a lot. That seems reasonable to me.
I'm not sure what you want instead: the same punishment no matter how much you exceed the limit?
|
NW,
And your comments on my points above ?
I think that frequently you go too far in your points of view, but I don't really see much issue in what you're saying this time, provided its based on reasonable speed limits.
Surely the issue is where a speed limit is entirely apporpriate for "average" conditions whether that is too high or low.
Although I do very much agree with your point that it is a maximum speed, not a target or recommended speed. Sadly, on the rare occasion a speed limit is too fast, one still doesn't see people driving at less than it very often, and frequently when there are, the driver is normally busy cursing the person in front for forcing them to do so.
|
NW, And your comments on my points above ? I think that frequently you go too far in your points of view, but I don't really see much issue in what you're saying this time, provided its based on reasonable speed limits.
Mark, I think we'd disagree about what would constitute "reasonable" speed limits -- I'd want lots of them radically reduced, and wouldn't expect you to agree.
On your plea for 100% enforcement, yes, I'd agree 100%. And there should be much more stealthy enforcement, to get deter the radar-detector mentality that you only really need to watch speed limits when they are enforced.
However, I do think that the punishment needs more subtlety than is currently the case. Driving "just-over-the-limit" may be a momentary lapse, but it's hard to say the same for 10mph over the limit, and it doesn't make sense to me to punish both with the same severity. It sems to me that proportionality is a good general principle in law.
If these cases were heard in courts, we could have magistrates applying a flexible logic to achieve that sort of outcome, but there are simply too many people breaking the speed limits for that to be viable, unless people wanted to pay the high costs of a hearing (which they have the option to do). So the flexibility can only come from some sort of rule-based system, to allow automated fixed-penalty notices to produce some sort of proportionality.
|
>>but it's hard to say the same for 10mph over the limit>>
In this case, if someone is pulled up or caught by a Gatso this far over the actual speed limit, then their speedometer reading (in for instance the case of a 40mph limit road) must have been approximately 58mph.
They deserve a fine and penalty points.
But to fine someone for doing 31mph in a 30mph limit is, quite frankly, draconian; they have clearly been attempting to abide by the speed limit set.
I did a check on my own speedometer the other day (VW Bora) and noticed that what appears to be a speed of 30mph is, in fact, slightly higher. The reason is because I am looking down at the guage and the needle lines up at 30mph when the actual speed is slightly higher.
|
|
|
"If these cases were heard in courts, we could have magistrates applying a flexible logic to achieve that sort of outcome, but there are simply too many people breaking the speed limits for that to be viable, unless people wanted to pay the high costs of a hearing (which they have the option to do). So the flexibility can only come from some sort of rule-based system, to allow automated fixed-penalty notices to produce some sort of proportionality."
The point must be made that the switch to mechanised enforcement has resulted in many, many more drivers being fined than would ever have happened in a manual systemand, it must be said, many, many more than were envisaged when cameras were first proposed.
With the number of speeding fines nudging three million per annum, magistrates courts sitting twenty four hours a day seven days a week would fail to process them all unless the number of courts were massively increased.
As Mark (RBLS) has said, more realistic limits more rigidly enforced are the way forward, but it will never happen, if only because no speed limit will ever be raised.
|
The point must be made that the switch to mechanised enforcement has resulted in many, many more drivers being fined than would ever have happened in a manual systemand, it must be said, many, many more than were envisaged when cameras were first proposed.
I suspect that in the early days of cameras, those behind them understimated the extent of resistance to speed-control.
As Mark (RBLS) has said, more realistic limits more rigidly enforced are the way forward, but it will never happen, if only because no speed limit will ever be raised.
I think that depends on what you consider realistic :)
My idea of realistic limits wouldn't involve raising any of them (except perhaps m'ways), but YMMV
|
>>My idea of realistic limits
....is not relevant. Insofar as your idea is known, it seems to be largely ridiculous.
What is needed is an objective and fair set of rules resulting from road and behavioural studies - not some half-assed battle cry; whether it is yours of half every speed limit or some similar clown saying double every limit.
As I have said before, as a group both motorists and the anti-speed contingent have shown themselves equally unable to understand either the problem or the potential solutions.
|
>>My idea of realistic limits ....is not relevant. Insofar as your idea is known, it seems to be largely ridiculous.
[snip]
Based on very different priorities: and it's that huge gap in perspectives which makes road speed such a hot issue. You are part way there when you talk of "an objective and fair set of rules": the question, though, is what objectives and fair to who?
But it's a pity to see a rather interesting discussion reduced to silliness such as the suggestion that I seek to "half every speed limit". Not so.
|
|
|
|
NW, we've been over this so many times before that I think I may nod off soon.
Last time HMG announced the exact same "fairer speeding fines" idea, we looked at it closely and found that it actually meant stiffer penalties across the board. Speeds at which you would now be prosecuted get harsher penalties and speeds at which you would not (now) be NIPped got the current penalties. Another example of pure spin.
This is not a rebalancing to make the system fairer. It is an deepening of the alternative taxation system. It would only be fair if combined with an intelligent review of every speed limit, as Mark has pointed out to us tirelessly. And I mean an intelligent review - in more depth than the fatuous review of speed camera placement that concluded that every single one was justified, only for the later figures to show that (at most) 100 saved a life and 5,400 didn't.
I will vote for the first party to promise that they will treat me like a grownup and not lie to me. Ever ever. Cross their heart and hope to die.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............
|
This is not a rebalancing to make the system fairer. It is an deepening of the alternative taxation system.
Patently, as you say, we've been round this one a few times before. But speeding fines are not taxation: they are a punishment for an easily avoidable offence.
If you don't want to pay them, just drive well enough within the limit to give yourself a margin of error. And if that's difficult, just make sure your next new car has a driver-controlled speed limiter.
(If you want it to have both a speed limiter and a propellor, you may need to have lengthy discsions with some Bavarians, but that's another day's work).
|
Cheeky - you're avoiding my criticism of the proposal.
And you're moving the discussion to something that we've been round and round (and round...) before.
In some circumstances, I'd agree with you. In others, I wouldn't. Unless we happen to be neighbours and can discuss specific examples in order to bring out the subtlety of the issue then I really don't have the time or energy to take it any further. Sorry.
(btw - both my cars have a "driver-controlled speed limiter" - it's fitted to the end of my right leg. The issue is that it sometimes disagrees with the town hall bureacrats.)
|
I don't want to moan on about speed limits as we always do...but...well I'm going to but only in relation to NW's post.
NW - in the nicest possible way, are you taking any hallucinogenic drugs? Do you laugh over a glass of cognac when you write these posts because I fear that's all they're good for now... a laugh. At first, the originality was mildly interesting but now it's boring...much like the rest of this post is going to be ;-)
>>If you don't want to pay them, just drive well enough within the limit to give yourself a margin of error<<
What??? Presumably you mean drive at...say....24mph. Would that be your margin of error? I understand that "speed kills" (in 7% of cases) But do you realise what would happen if we all drove that slow to give ourselves...ho ho ho...'margins of error'? Why not drive at 20...no - let's all ride around in horse and carts as you seemingly must do to live your daily life. If I were to ask the question "Have you ever broken the speed limit" I'm sure I'd get a very witty answer with a light-hearted joke about how you saw the error of your ways.
You also mention about 'radically reducing' some existing limits. Hmmph. I'll recite the age old argument of "the national speed limit was set when cars had pencil thin tyres and blah blah blah" Why on earth do the limits need to be raised even less - I thought there was a...*another laugh* s a f e t y c a m e r a in every accident blackspot.
Quite frankly, I now find your arguments rather repetetive - much like mine are but if you ever became government adviser for transport we'd get hanged for doing 72mph on the motorway because a kid may be walking on a bridge and may trip, somersault over the barrier and then land in front of a car.
If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go to a friends house now; I'll need to drive on the quietest motorway in Britain - the m58 and of course I'll give myself a margin of error...shall we say 26mph - I don't think I could do much damage on the motorway at 44mph at 11pm do you?
Mods, I am very sorry for my long post and yes...it is rather boring but I feel so much better for it!
Thank you
Adam
|
Raise limits even less? I think I've been on too much Cognac...
Adam
|
>>If you don't want to pay them, just drive well enough within the limit to give yourself a margin of error<< What??? Presumably you mean drive at...say....24mph. Would that be your margin of error?
Adam, if I couldn't control my speed rather better than within a 20% margin of error, I'd wonder whether I still deserved a licence. 10% should be enough.
And no, I don't travel in a horse and cart: have just driven a few hundred miles, mostly at about 55-60mph in a 60mph limit ... having insisted on taking over from a driver who was holding up the traffic by doing 50 and not pulling over to let people pass.
Yes, I have broken speed limits, just as I have broken other laws. Doesn't make it a good thing to do, nor does it make me think that limits shouldn't be enforced.
|
Here's the thing;
100% enforcement of correct speed limits is something I would support unreservedly.
However, 20mph is not categorically better than 30mph. It depends.
The freedom to do 60mph where 50mph is more reasonable is silly.
And it seems to me that there is as much logic and sense on the part of the "limit speeding gang" as there is on the part of the "speed cameras are evil gang".
Dirvers have spent years proving that they are, as a group, incapable of deciding an appropriate speed. The anti-speed campaigners have spent the last few years proving that neither can they.
I can't see either of you agreeing, and the losers will be those of us who are in neither camp.
|
Agreed. You'll not hear a peep out of me on this topic again :-)
Adam
|
|
Patently, sorry .. I didn't pick up on the point about wanting different limits, cos that seems to me to be a separate discussion, and (as you say) one we've done to death.
However, I have just been reading the actual consultation document rather than the news report. It's relatively short (2000 words) and straightforward: www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/docume...p (or tinyurl.com/3tukz )
A few interesting points:
* Point 23: the govt is not seeking to change the ACPO guidance on the threshold for prosection. (A pity, I reckon)
* Point 17-18: they want more speed awareness courses as an alternative to formal legal processes, subject to police discretion
* Points 14-15: The current guidance to local authorities on local speed limits is being revised and updated, consultation due shortly
* The current consultation applies only to fixed penalties
|
Thanks for the link, NW. Sadly, I now trust very little that I read/hear from HMG. It often upsets me that I feel this way, but once bitten, as they say.
I like the promotion of education for non-serial offenders. This might actually help. It will certainly have more effect on many than £60 and 3 points.
I don't like the paper's logic:
"Many people are killed or seriously injured on the roads. This is bad. (OK so far) Speeding is the main cause (err..) so it's all we're going to look at." This highlights the one-dimensional thought process that characterises today's approach to road safety.
It is having results; the NSL section of the A404 from Wycombe to Amersham is now a slower road than it was. I am having more near misses as a result. I meet Mr Nervous in front of me who has been spooked by the DANGER!!!! SLOW DOWN!!!! 14 PEOPLE DIED HERE!!!! signs and chug along behind him at 30. Then Gary in his Nova arrives behind me and decides that he wants to get past. Sadly there are few good overtaking opportunities so he takes what he can get.
There is actually an electronic sign on the A404 which flashes a warning to slow down for the oncoming bend. It warns you whatever speed you are travelling at. The message: any speed is too high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its all to do with money.
Chances are if your are driving a car (and not wearing a Burberry cap) you have some and they want to take some off you.
Example:
My brother, 31 yrs old, good job, Seat Leon Cupra, deserted M-way, 104mph, stopped, £300 fine fortnight ban.
I look in the "Whos in Court" section in the local press, No tax, no MOT, no insurance, no licence, speeding in 30mph limit. £25 fine and 3 points, on a licence he does'nt have!
These new measures just make it easier.
Also the 20mph limit outside the primary School near me is in force 24/7/365 even though the place has been deserted for the last 7 weeks!
The whole issue of speed limits needs a good looking at but its not going to happen any time soon.
|
Unfortunately it is the case that some people are effectively exempt from some laws.
I have posted before about a single mother of 3 kids of my acquaintance. She used to sit next to me at junior school and she lives near my mother.
She continually drives around in an untaxed unlicenced car, most of the time over the speed limit. She is caught arrested and fined. The judges never jail her because that would upset her children. She has no money to pay the fines so she doesn't. She lives in a council house and has no goods that are seizable (there are strict rules on what can be removed from a house where children live). She is effectively exempt from the law until she kills someone and even then I'm not sure they would jail her.
My point, yes mods I'm getting there. Basically the Government and the Police have put forward the arguement that speeding is a TERRIBLE crime in all circumstances and draconian measures are needed to curb it. 100% enforcement. Now if they really believed this they would jail this woman. So why don't they? Why is this a major crime if you are 'rich' but can be bypassed if you are 'poor'?
|
|
|
Also the 20mph limit outside the primary School near me is in force 24/7/365 even though the place has been deserted for the last 7 weeks!
Deserted? Apart from the summer clubs, use of the sportsfield, evening judo clubs ......
|
>Deserted? Apart from the summer clubs, use of the sportsfield, evening judo clubs ......
Yes, deserted, its not used for any of those activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
