ed the dead

Another thread on speeding penalties I'm afraid.

I think that the whole issue of speed limits needs to address, 30 mph is too high in residential areas, and 70 is unrealistic on the m-way. I think that everybody agrees that if you hit a person, car, tree, wall, etc at 30mph rather than 20 it will cause more damage to both the thing you hit and you. It is common sence that in residential areas that are a lot more things to hit than on the m-way (specially people, who are soft and break easily), so in these areas a lower speed limit should be imposed.

On the m-way, however, most cars are more than capable of, safely doing at least 80 mph (if the drivers are is another matter) and the 40/50/60 mph limits seem to be decided by the toss of a coin.

On the subject of penaties, why not decide it by the percentage over the speed limit you are doing ie 4 mph over the limit in a 20 zone would attract the same penalty as 84 in a 70. This would be much fairer since the zones with a higher limit must have that higher limit because they are seen as 'safer'. Then points could be awarded based on the percentage over the limit you are ie 2 point for ever 5 or 10%.

I also believe that everyone who is caught speeding should be penalised for it. The current system where police officers use their discression is inheirantly unfair (nothing again the police at all). If i go out this afternoon and murder some one, the police don't look at me and say 'young male quick arrest him' or 'middle age woman, we'll let her off', they would arrest me any way, why should it be any different for speeding?

Just my thoughts, any responce appreciated!

I'm going back down to the muppet forum now, where I belong!!

HunterB

Speed limits are irrelevant to safe driving. They are merely a device to give drivers an indication of what the Law considers to be a safe speed in ideal conditions and a threshold over which drivers know they are in the wrong.

Humans need to know what the boundaries are. In Montana USA a few years ago, they abandoned speed limits at night in preference for allowing drivers to travel at what they considered a "safe and prudent" speed. The speed limit was reintroduced when drivers complained that there was too much ambiguity about the term "safe and prudent". A skilled driver may consider 100mph safe and prudent on a deserted two-lane interstate, but the police may not. Hence the reintroduction of the limit (now 75mph).

Safe drivers will always choose a safe speed for the prevailing conditions. That may be well below the posted limit and may, on occasion, be above the posted limit. Safe drivers still know that they'll potentially be penalised for going over the posted limit.

The discretion shown by police officers serves to acknowledge that not everyone driving in excess of a posted limit is driving unsafely. Police officers will have a word with drivers whose driving falls below acceptable standards, even if BELOW the posted speed limit. Gatso cameras and other robotic detection devices will always penalise potentially safe drivers whilst allowing the stupid and dangerous ones driving below the limit to go undetected.

Another of life's little oddities ....

Brian

GCollier

But what about errors of judgement? The "safe" driver may consider that going 90mph down a certain road at a certain time is safe, only to have an accident because of a slight error in observation, which could have been avoided at 60mph.

Anybody who says that speeding doesn't increase level of risk (however slight), even in good conditions, isn't being honest with themselves. It is just a tradeoff they're willing to make for the associated buzz of driving fast.

Gary.

HunterB

I disagree. A safe driver won't be doing 90mph if it isn't safe to do so. Who says 60 is safe, 59 is safe, 61 isn't? The numbers are arbitrary, not based on any science or analysis. If they were based scientifically, they'd be universal. In France, speed limits are 31mph (50kph), 37mph (60kph), 56mph (90kph), 68mph (110kph) and 81mph (130kph) depending on road and weather conditions. In the USA, speed limits are set at 35, 45, 55, 65 and 75mph. In the UK, at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70mph. Where's the correlation? The numbers are there to give drivers limits. Drive over the limit, you're breaking the law. Drive under it, you're not. You may not be driving safely under the limit, but that rarely matters.

As I said above, speed limits are irrelevant to safe driving. I never said anything about driving fast (whatever that means ??? )

Brian

[This message has been edited by HunterB (edited 12 February 2001).]

ed the dead

I'm sorry hunterb but the police person ( ) who stop a driver for speeding with a radar gun stood at the side of the road has no idea if that driver is a 'safe' driver. What I am saying is that speed is a clear cut offence, either your speed is over the limit or its not. I do not see why young male drivers in fast cars (of which I am one, but i have never been stoped for speeding, by the way) should get penalised while middle age mothers driving a super mini will more than likely get a ticking off and sent on their way.

I am sorry to bring this up, but if police applied the same 'disgression' on the basis of race there would be absolute up roar (quite rightly).

T5NYW

iTrader: (4)

Why are speed cameras not in places where most accidents happen outside Schools, in housing estates and on bends???
Why? because of revenue, if cameras were placed at these sort of sites they would not generate the CASH the BIG bucks !!!
WHERE do they put them, where youve been following lorries and grey haired old F**ts for 3 miles of twists and turns doing 40 mph in 60 mph zone, the first BIG long straight, 1 mile long, were even a travant would be safe overtaking, what do you get, either plod with gun or speed cameras!! WHY NOT to save lives but to get INCOME.
Have plod or camera outside school would save lives.

Well thats my opinion any way, as a Father and believe it or not someone whos never been done for speeding in 20 years (so Iam not a winging person whos been DONE

edited because Iam tired.



[This message has been edited by T5NYW (edited 13 February 2001).]

cwal1

GCollier,

Saying that speeding, no matter what the conditions, increases the risk is naive. Risk associated with a set of actions (such as driving at a particular speed) is a consequence of ALL factors. Therefore a driver who is driving at an enforced speed limit, which is lower than the speed he would choose to drive at in those conditions, could be at INCREASED risk of an accident due to lower concentration levels.

A safe driver would drive at an appropriate speed at all times, maintaining his concentration and minimising any risk. If the approporiate speed is lower than the posted speed limit then that speed is the one the a safe driver would choose.

Views such as yours just fuel the anti car lobby.

Chris.

GCollier

Sorry HunterB, I bow before your Godlike ability in judging, without error, the maximum safe speed for all roads at all times. I'm also in awe of your ESP which predicts when a pheasant, fox or sheep is going to run out into the road in front of you, when a vehicle is going to pull out from a concealed entrance, and when somebody coming the other way is going to fall asleep at the wheel or try some dumb overtake. The list goes on

Seriously, I am NOT saying the arbitrary numbers are always safe, of course they aren't. All I'm saying is that an error of judgement, or a sudden unexpected event, even in the best and "safest" conditions is likely to be a lot more serious at 90mph than it is at 60mph.

I am not some anti-car lobby killjoy. I enjoy driving fast as much as the next member of this board do. I just get sick of all the bull**** speeding threads, which sprout up because people feel that their "right" to use the road as some sort of racetrack or place for fun is threatened.

Please, just admit (as I do) that the increased risk of driving fast balances (for you) the pleasure derived from it, and have done with it.

Gary.

HunterB

Gary,

Sorry if I came over all Godlike - I didn't intend to. But the art (or science) of safe driving is all about expecting the unexpected, using concentration, observation, experience and judgement to be at a safe speed to cater for any circumstance. That includes blind junctions, drivers who are fast asleep and pretty much any other hazard that occur when you're driving.

I don't believe in accidents and I don't believe in unavoidable collisions. Both are caused by basic inattention or lack of skill. I consider myself a safe driver because in 30 years driving I've never had a crash, or a bump, or run anyone over, nor have I ever had any points on my licence (OK then, I'll admit to being partly Godlike ). My point is still that speed LIMITS are irrelevant to road safety.

I acknowledge that the faster the collision, the more the damage. Basic physics. Government never tires of telling us that if you hit someone at 20mph, they've a 1 in 10 chance of being killed; if you hit them at 40mph, they've a 9 in 10 chance of being killed. No argument there. How about training drivers NOT to hit them at all??! How about training pedestrians to reduce the number of times they put themsleves at risk?

I repeat, I've never made any mention of driving fast, and I don't quite understand what you mean by that. How do you define "fast"? If I drive fast in my twin-turbo Legacy, am I driving at the same speed as if I drive fast in my Justy? And is that the same speed as if I walk fast, run fast, cycle fast, or swim fast? I suspect you're suggesting that driving "fast" means driving at a speed which is excessive for the prevailing circumstances, which is dangerous. My contention remains that safe driving (and everything that that entails) will not result in a driver driving at a speed that is excessive, and therefore dangerous. What part do you think a speed LIMIT plays in safe driving?

Brian
(the only Godlike quality I have is a stunning physical resemblance to Buddha!)

HunterB

ed,

The police don't make the laws, but they are obliged to uphold them, whether they agree with them or not. That some policepeople, in some circumstances, exercise some discretion is to their credit (IMHO) but I don't think it's something anyone can rely on. Police have targets to meet to meet the targets of their superiorss to meet the targets set by Government and, at certain times, they'll be under greater pressure to produce results. Discretion may go by the wayside (if only for a time). Also, policepeople are people, and therefore subject to the same pressures as the rest of us. Ever wondered how you'd react in a given circumstance if you were a policeman? I reckon it's to their credit that they don't hit more of their clients!

Life's not fair, sometimes, but I reckon we all know what the law is, we all know when we break it deliberately, and we all know that we could be penalised if caught. Reward vs risk vs reward. Can't blame the police for the result of our own deliberate actions.

Brian

boomer

Brian,

here here!!!!

mb

Edited to correct typo - Brain to Brian (but then again, maybe i am right, along with godlike !)

[This message has been edited by boomer (edited 13 February 2001).]

CLS

I am 100% behind HunterB on this. G.Collier for goodness sake go and do an advanced driving test and then you'll know what he means. If you have already then you obviously were'nt paying attention.
Gatsos should be in places where they'll do some good as opposed to merely earning revenue..they're not. Ask your local force where they put them. They put them on roads where there are most accidents..yes! But the accident figures only use the road number which can be miles long and there are other physical limitations about placing them.. bad bends, local politics etc. If you think speed kills on its own then you are sadly mistaken. Bad driving kills and should be stamped on.. but it's very expensive to detect..It need police officers!
Sorry Rant over

Mick

iTrader: (1)

I agree with the general tone of the responses here. CWAL1 I was about to comment exactly what you have said. I err.. have a friend, who used to motorcycle at considerably high speeds, but (he told me) was 100% concentrating on traffic & driving - no distractions. --> No accidents !

BarryK

You heard on breakfast news today?

Then you've come to the right place to improve your news.

Check out

James Douglas

The thing i really dislike about speed traps is that they never seem to be in an area where they should be. If they set them up 100 yards from a school at 8.30am then they are doing a good service and i have no complaints if i get done. However, i only see them on wide open roads on sunny days in places where doing 10mph over the speed limit is "safe".

Then they cant really justify to me how they are "saving lives" and not just picking on motorists in easy spots to make money. The police should take into account the location and weather etc.

Thats why a parked police car is so much more effective - you see one and slow down - a.s.a.p. If you cant see them then how are they making things safer?

Pointing a gun 1/2 mile away isnt saving or slowing anything.

The Police should spend time in built up areas where speeding is a inappropriate and a danger. High profile and lots of "Noise".

Otherwise its all about making money.

DJFish

I heard on BBC breakfast news today that drivers caught over 85MPH will face an automatic years ban.

Is it just me or does anyone else think that doing 45 in a 30 zone is a more serious misuse of speed?

You're more likely to have a dimwit child run out in front of you in a 30 zone (happened to me the other day on a road where drivers regularly speed) than on the motorway which is pretty much the only place where you're going to be able to consistently achieve those speeds anyway.

Oh sorry, I forgot that speed alone kills and not bad driving, inattention or lack of common sense.

Rant over

Dave

GCollier

CLS

FFS I think it's pretty obvious that I DON'T THINK that speed kills on its own. Of course that awareness, observation and planning are extremely important. Yet you can be the best driver in the bloody world with A1 observation, and still have an accident.

My ONLY point is that higher speed coupled with human fallibility equals higher risk of the incident being a big one IF it happens, and that this risk is deemed ACCEPTABLE by us lovers of fast cars. Or are you another "infallible impreza driver", who would disagree?

Gary.

CLS

My point is simply that bad driving kills! Speed doesn't! Every car travels at a speed otherwise it wouldn't move would it. Motorways are the safest roads until some poor soul see's the Gatso markings on the road then anchors on as though someone has run out in front of them. I've seem it happen so many times. I'm not infallible which is why I drive as I do. Tempting fate now but never had an accident in 20 years of driving enthusiastically. And no never caused one either!