[Closed] Can you challenge over zealous speed limits?

A lot of ifs, but what do you base this on?

Common sense? (-:

It's my personal opinion is all. What are you suggesting I'm wrong about, and what do you base that on?

My experience is extensive though

and of more value than yours.

The second thing is that I don't actually care for your opinion on the matter either.

It's my personal opinion is all. What are you suggesting I'm wrong about, and what do you base that on?

I wouldn't question the need for extra space and attention. But surely the faster you go, your reaction times will be the same, friction forces will be the same but centripetal forces increased, time until you reach a hazard after going around a corner etc reduced, braking distances increased. In my limited experience people drive as if nothing will go wrong- thankfully speed limits and the Highway Code reduce the likelihood that things will go wrong, but they always will and the faster people travel the more likely it is collisions etc will happen.

.i might have been wiped out by someone doing less than the limit but changing lanes without looking

Hmm.. so in this case - whose fault would the resulting accident be?

What if the car driver was looking for a nearby with say, a closing speed of 10mph, and didn't see the distant bike doing 120mph and closing at 50mph?

Driverless cars will solve the problem long before a political/legislative solution can be found.

Cougar - I suspect most speeding revenue comes from mobile vans not fixed cameras. In theory those could capture mobile phone, seatbelt, tax, insurance, safe distance and even defective light offences. As I understand it the reason they don't is they only get to keep and reinvest speeding fines. Of course the public hate the idea that fines are revenue machines - but given the cost of KSI and fatalities on society, I'm not sure we need to recycle them money directly into enforcement vans; it's just a case of understanding economics.

scotroutes - Member

We could increase speeding fines ten-fold. That should generate some extra income.

It would be nice if the police would actually prosecute drivers for causing accidents.
Twice I've had cars pile into the back of me, writing my car off in the process because by their own admission they simply weren't looking at the road ahead and nothing was done to punish the driver.

In theory those could capture mobile phone, seatbelt, tax, insurance, safe distance and even defective light offences. As I understand it the reason they don't is they only get to keep and reinvest speeding fines

I doubt the images are good enough quality for prosecuting mobile phones. First it's got to be clear that the driver is holding something then it has to be clear that it's a phone, then it's got to be clear the phone is being used. Still images probably not enough.

For example

The court heard from PC Elaine Turner who was in a police van with two colleagues at the time of the alleged incident.

PC Turner claimed she saw Sarwar driving his car towards their van.

Asked if she noticed anything about the driver she said: "He had a mobile phone at his right ear."

The constable they turned the van around and went to speak to Sarwar, who had pulled into a lay by.

In evidence Sarwar told the court that he didn't answer the phone until he had pulled over.

J P John Lawless ruled that there was an "insufficiency of corroborative evidence" and returned a not proven verdict.

http://www.heraldscotland.comnews13135807.Labour_MP_cleared_of_using_phone_at_wheel/

Or the case of comedian Jimmy Carr who was charged with using a mobile phone whilst driving when he had in fact been using the phone to record a joke.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/6350399/Jimmy-Carr-cleared-of-using-mobile-while-driving.html

I wouldn't question the need for extra space and attention. But surely the faster you go, your reaction times will be the same, friction forces will be the same but centripetal forces increased, time until you reach a hazard after going around a corner etc reduced, braking distances increased.

Correct, of course. But if you don't account for that then you're no longer driving to the conditions. Increased speed requires increased braking distances, and if you're going round a corner at a speed which doesn't allow for surprises you can't anticipate or react to in time to then you're going too fast.

I'm not advocating driving everywhere at mach 1, rather that if you're driving at a speed appropriate to the traffic and conditions and are aware of your surroundings then you won't have a collision. If you do hit something, you weren't doing one of those things.

Driving in excess of a one-size-fits-all posted limit isn't necessarily dangerous (though it can be and of course it's breaking the law), driving in excess of what's appropriate for the conditions is. If you drive at 50 in a 60 one one day, and then they reduce the limit and you drive the same road at 50 in a 40 the next, were you safe one day and dangerous the next? In and of itself, of course not - the only thing that's changed is your speed differential with other road users, and we're back to "driving to the conditions" again.

(Point of note, I used to drive everywhere like my head was on fire; these days I rarely break the posted limit. Motorways are about the only time I do, and even then it's not by much - indicated 80-85 so probably around 75mph in actuality.)

But Cougar, you're arguing for personal responsibility. And given how ****-witted most people are when it comes to driving, I can't possibly agree with that principle.

molgrips - Member

But Cougar, you're arguing for personal responsibility. And given how ****-witted most people are when it comes to driving, I can't possibly agree with that principle.

And yet millions of people manage to drive without incident every day.
We need to increase the levels of personal responsibility and adjust driver attitudes with it, not molly coddle drivers into a false sense of safety.

ETA: and get more of you bastards off the roads, stop being so selfish and lazy. Even walking home at 23:30 last night, the fumes from traffic were 'orrible. 👿

molly coddle drivers into a false sense of safety.

I don't think speed limits do that.

molgrips - Member

I don't think speed limits do that.

In combination with the amount of enforcement, I believe it does.

We'll prosecute a driver for travelling 4mph over an arbitrary limit without incident, yet we won't prosecute a driver who is so inattentive that they actually cause a collision.
What sort of message do you think that gives people?

My OH is learning to ride a bike (well, a beast of a scooter) at the moment. I've told her, the single most important skill on the roads is awareness. If you're looking around you, scanning, seeking, thinking ahead, anticipating what potential erratic stupidity might occur next, reading the road conditions, looking ahead, then anything else is gravy. If everyone did this, we wouldn't have collisions.

The problem is that we're not in an ideal world. Almost 50% of the population are of below average intelligence. So we have to design roads to work both for competent drivers and for shitwits.

Wise words and equally applicable to the Grayling thread.

But Cougar, you're arguing for personal responsibility. And given how *-witted most people are when it comes to driving, I can't possibly agree with that principle.

You're arguing against people taking responsibility for their actions? Wow.

The solution there is to get the shitwits off the road. Advanced test to be passed two years after the basic one, and retests every ten years, maybe? Driving is a privilege not a right, if you can't drive in a straight line without hitting something and need signs to tell you not to drive at 60mph past a school, take the *ing bus.

We'll prosecute a driver for travelling 4mph over an arbitrary limit without incident, yet we won't prosecute a driver who is so inattentive that they actually cause a collision.
What sort of message do you think that gives people?

Amen to that.

@Cougar I hear what you are saying and have a little sympathy with your position but far too many drivers have an overconfident view of their driving ability (IMHO). I am not convinced they all drive as well as you appear to [there was a member on here recently, I think he was a spy 😉 who did not fill me with confidence in his driving]. Accidents do occur, surely a large number of these by people mis-judging something fundamental. Also, aside from the extra risks, being the delicate flower that I am, I would rather cycle on roads beside people driving at 40 mph than say 60 mph. I find the extra noise also unpleasant - but heh ho, I have no say in the way things are.

Then again if I did, I'd change all the speed limits to km/h - no need for new signs

far too many drivers have an overconfident view of their driving ability (IMHO)

I imagine that describes pretty much every driver, TBF.

Biggest primary cause of KSIs is inattention.
Speeding is primary cause in approx 4%.
The vast majority of accidents happen within the limit.
Worth a think.
And before molgrips jumps in to point out that speed will make any accident worse, think about what a small % of accidents that would affect.

And before molgrips jumps in to point out that speed will make any accident worse, think about what a small % of accidents that would affect.

Speeding is primary cause in approx 4%.

And in how many does more speed make the consequences worse?

(All of them)

And in how many does more speed make the consequences worse?

poly - Member

The ones most likely to have a serious outcome?

A tiny fraction of the ones that have a serious outcome (KSIs).
I thought my point was clear...

molgrips - Member

And in how many does more speed make the consequences worse?

(All of them)

So... we... shouldn't... drive...?

NOW YOU'RE GETTING IT!!! 😀
GET ORFFF MOI ROADS!!!

I wonder if there are any stats to show the number of accidents avoided because of speed. You know the ones where a muppet would have t-boned you on a roundabout but a heavy does of right foot has got you out of trouble. Or being able to accelerate on the motorway has got you away from the muppet who would have hit you in their mirrorless lane change.

Almost never, in my experience.

However I have avoided many many accidents because my speed was conservative and I was able to slow down in time.

But that's driving to the conditions, which everyone is in favour of. The difference is that the people who like driving fast think that all drivers are sensible and responsible enough to make a good choice on their own.

I've no idea where on earth they get that idea from tbh. It's almost as if they are scrabbling around for justification for their own desires...

For what it's worth, I like driving fast. But I don't do it.

Almost never, in my experience.

However I have avoided many many accidents because my speed was conservative and I was able to slow down in time.

We'll prosecute a driver for travelling 4mph over an arbitrary limit without incident, yet we won't prosecute a driver who is so inattentive that they actually cause a collision.

Do you think that's a deliberate decision?

It's not. The reason is that speed is easy to measure, but attentiveness is not. We have a rule that says you must not go faster than the limit. This is very obviously needed, because otherwise people would drive much too fast with impunity.

We can't prosecute people for simply not paying attention - thats impossible. When accidents are caused, then they go to court, and they go through a completely different process with different results. It's how the justice system works, unfortunately. It is NOT a conscious decision to prioritise speed over paying attention. That's absurd.

We prosecute people for going 4mph over a speed limit (which is not arbitrary, by the way) because it's easy. But it's equally easy to stay under the speed limit. You, and others, are simply pissing and moaning because you are impatient and want to drive faster.

It is absoultely 100% definitively safer to go slower, because there is less energy involed. It's also more pleasant for everyone else on the road, and uses up fewer natural resources and generates less pollution. This is irrefutable. But of course, too slow and it'll take too long to get places. So we strike a balance, and attempt to enforce consitstent behaviour. We have to work this way, we have no other choice.

You don't have a leg to stand on I'm afraid. Your main argument seems to be that either the police care more about speed than whether or not you are paying attention; or that by having speed limits it somehow encourages people not to pay attemtion. I can't accept either of those two arguments. Paying attention is something people do, or don't do, independent of how fast they feel comfortable driving.

I feel that it's idiots who have accidents and not necessarily faster drivers.

I agree with that. Let me be clear - I am not saying that speed is the main cause of accidents, and that slow drivers are always safer drivers.

Roll on driverless cars.

Surely if you get done for speeding by a parked car/van or a camera you HAVE been inattentive? It's not like they're subtly camouflaged!

And before molgrips jumps in to point out that speed will make any accident worse, think about what a small % of accidents that would affect.

Every one involving a pedestrian or cyclist.

Roll on driverless cars.

Pointless unless everyone is in them, and whilst not implausible that won't happen in your kids' lifetime.

Surely if you get done for speeding by a parked car/van or a camera you HAVE been inattentive? It's not like they're subtly camouflaged!

But I am not going to waste time trying to differentiate between a maintenance vehicle or a secret plod revenue generator

Me neither. I just stick to the speed limits. Never realised how good of a driver I must be to be able to do this 🙂

I treat everyone else on the road as an incompetent fool who hasn't seen me nor anyone else. And when riding motorbikes also assume they'll run into me just for the hell of it.

So far it's enabled me to survive +35 years of driving cars, riding motorbikes and bikes and walking pretty much unscathed - and that includes tens of thousands of miles at way above the NSL/motorway speed limits and the best part of hundred thousand miles riding big motorbikes (mainly commuting in/around the home counties).

Me neither. I just stick to the speed limits. Never realised how good of a driver I must be to be able to do this

deleted

scotroutes - Member

Surely if you get done for speeding by a parked car/van or a camera you HAVE been inattentive? It's not like they're subtly camouflaged!

100% true Scotroutes - or you were going so fast you couldn't slow down in time.

My two speeding tickets this year were on a trunk road that is mainly NSL but I was on a 50 mph section that I missed the signs for - so got done for 60 in a 50 by a fixed camera that I saw but thought I was OK. Inattention. the other one was on a dual carriageway section as I booted it past a line of trucks. didn't see the camera ( mobile) soon enough to slow enough. too much speed and poor observation 87 in a 70

too much speed and poor observation 87 in a 70

NOpe - I could and should have seen the camera earlier. Of course the best way not to get speeding tickets is not to speed

But you were doing 87.

I'm an increasely non approved way I tend to make progress but if I get caught I'm the one to blame it's my choice.
Yes I get fed up stuck behind the retard doing 40 in a 60 and I will pass them and speed to do so but when I get a ticket I can't blame the bumbling idiot it's was my choice.

As for limit changes on my regular trips some come down but some have also risen

Retard is not a cool word orangeboy.
Anyways.

NOpe - I could and should have seen the camera earlier. Of course the best way not to get speeding tickets is not to speed

So far it's six pages of car wombles I'm glad to have ignored 😀

[quote=tjagain ]100% true Scotroutes - or you were going so fast you couldn't slow down in time.

I disagree - maybe nether you nor Colin have seen vans nabbing drivers in the way they were both times I got caught. Certainly on the first one, the reported speed was 85mph which is what I was doing as I came over the brow of the hill, and hit the brakes as soon as the camera van came into sight. Sure I was going too fast, because the limit was 70, but unless you're expecting infinite deceleration then the last part of your comment doesn't really apply. I'm slightly less sure on the second one, but only because I don't know exactly what speed I was doing - and expected it to be faster than on the ticket (it's a 50 limit DC, which used to be a 70 and is still just as safe at that speed on the bit I was on - the only reason I slow down is expectation of cameras).

[b] I'm glad to have ignored[/b]

Err...

😆

[b]Rule 146[/b]
Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular

do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit

take the road and traffic conditions into account. Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend.

If it helps clarify things at all, the van was parked up way beyond my stopping distance, even at 85. You do appreciate that it's possible for things to come into sight over the brow of a hill (or around a corner) even if you're religiously obeying that rule?

Or a blind summit perhaps?

Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular

sbob - A tiny fraction of the ones that have a serious outcome (KSIs).

I thought my point was clear...

The problem is roads are public infrastructure not private playgrounds for the speedy boys.

Car drivers have driven almost all other users off the road.

The reason so many people are reluctant to cycle, the reason so many parents shuttle their children to nearby schools instead of them walking, is because of the fear of meeting one of those superbly skilled entitled drivers who doesn't need to observe speed limits.

That quiet country winding road you're hooting along at night may just have a pedestrian or cyclist round the corner, so you should drive accordingly. Pedestrians and cyclists have as much right to the road as drivers, and there's no footpath, so where else would one be?

Speed is good fun, but so is shooting. Speeding in public places is as unacceptable as target shooting down a crowded mall. You don't mean to hit anyone, but it can and does happen.

The punishments are a joke.

Some cops just don't care and just want less paperwork.

A while ago, a woman knocked a guy off his moped outside my house. She turned straight across him. The moped guy had his leg ripped through to the bone just above the ankle which, I'm guessing, he did as he bounced off the crash barrier.

The traffic cop breathalised both parties then just left it at that. The accident was blatantly the woman's fault, this guy was lying in an ambulance on gas and air with his ankle ripped apart and the cop said it wasn't bad enough to be prosecuted for due care and attention.

In my book, not seeing another road user is not paying attention.

tjagain - Member

the other one was on a dual carriageway section as I booted it past a line of trucks. didn't see the camera ( mobile) soon enough to slow enough. too much speed and poor observation 87 in a 70

So doing 87mph past a line of traffic doing what 56mph? On a dual carriageway. Seriously bad driving IMO. I don't do 87 on the outside lane of the motorway.

Was this a restricted road like the Edinburgh bypass that bans slow traffic or could there have been a cyclist or a tractor round the next corner?

That quiet country winding road you're hooting along at night may just have a pedestrian or cyclist round the corner, so you should drive accordingly.

Completely agree, that's what I've been saying all along. That country lane is almost certainly NSL - a 60mph speed limit. Safe to drive at 60 when you don't know what's round the next bend? I don't think so.

In my book, not seeing another road user is not paying attention.

Yup.

It's always deeply depressing to read how little regard drivers, who are allegedly "cyclists" on this forum really care about the safety of vulnerable road users. I've experienced such rage, such carelessness, such danger on rural roads and urban streets from motorists.

So when I hear forumites flopping their willies out and saying what awesome drivers they are that they can just ignore the law as they see fit, I just hear a bunch of ****ers.

You motorist dickheads, you are the reason so few cycle in this country. You are the reason children aren't safe to walk or ride to school. You are the reason my old housemate walks with a permanent limp at the age of 26 because she got mown down on the pavement by a motorist who thought he had a massive willy too.

These vehicles are clearly placed in areas to make the most money, irrespective of the threat to life.

No, they are trying to get the point across that there are speed limits and you have to stick to them. I can't imagine the kind of attitude that blames law enforcement for enforcing the law, rather than taking a look at your own behaviour.

You don't have a moral or legal right to speed. End of story.

molgrips - Member

However I have avoided many many accidents because my speed was conservative and I was able to slow down in time.

But that's driving to the conditions, which everyone is in favour of. The difference is that the people who like driving fast think that all drivers are sensible and responsible enough to make a good choice on their own.

I've no idea where on earth they get that idea from tbh. It's almost as if they are scrabbling around for justification for their own desires...

For what it's worth, I like driving fast. But I don't do it.

I see you are continuing your usual position of refusing to accept that drivers can make safe judgements whilst simultaneously professing that you can make safe judgements. 🙂

Have you ever considered that there are some people who might think that [i]you[/i]drive too fast? 💡

I see you are continuing your usual position of refusing to accept that drivers can make safe judgements

Flipping eck.

Of course I accept that drivers CAN make safe judgements. If I didn't, I would not go on the roads at all.

However I don't accept that ALL drivers make safe judgements.

If those of you who think that the limits are too low want to do something, I'd suggest you go on strike. Refuse to drive. Simply send your licence back to here

DVLA
Swansea
SA99 1BU

with a strongly worded letter saying you refuse to drive until the speed limits are increased. When they are inundated with post and the roads are empty I'm sure they'll get the idea.

If those of you who think that the limits are too low want to do something, I'd suggest you go on strike. Refuse to drive. Simply send your licence back to here

😆

If those of you who think that the limits are too low want to do something, I'd suggest you go on strike. Refuse to drive. Simply send your licence back to here

DVLA
Swansea
SA99 1BU

with a strongly worded letter saying you refuse to drive until the speed limits are increased. When they are inundated with post and the roads are empty I'm sure they'll get the idea.

Chapeau!

molgrips - Member

Do you think that's a deliberate decision?

It's not. The reason is that speed is easy to measure, but attentiveness is not.

If a driver propels his or her car into a stationary object that is directly in front of them, I'd wager that an indication of some level of inattentiveness had occurred. 💡

We can't prosecute people for simply not paying attention - thats impossible.

What absolute trot.
Of course we can, there is even a specific offence for it: driving without due care and attention.

When accidents are caused, then they go to court, and they go through a completely different process with different results.

My word you are on a roll.
The only difference is fixed penalty notices aren't routinely offered when accidents are caused. If we did offer FPNs then the process would be exactly the same; accept FPN or go to court.

It is NOT a conscious decision to prioritise speed over paying attention. That's absurd.

What did they do, throw all the ideas for policing the roads into a hat and pick one out?
Maybe the policy decisions came to them in a dream?

You're on a way express train to Turbobelmtown, and the guards are on strike so you can't get off.

You, and others, are simply pissing and moaning because you are impatient and want to drive faster.

I gave up driving. I do not drive.

It is absolutely 100% definitively safer to go slower, because there is less energy involved. It's also more pleasant for everyone else on the road, and uses up fewer natural resources and generates less pollution. This is irrefutable.

It's also irrefutable that you are more dangerous, less pleasant and more polluting than [b]someone who doesn't drive[/b].

So we strike a balance, and attempt to enforce consistent behaviour.

More trot.
We allow a ridiculously varied assortment of users on our roads, with different rules for all of them.
Consistent behaviour is only of use if you can always rely on it. If you can't always rely on it then it is dangerous to try.

Your main argument seems to be that either the police care more about speed than whether or not you are paying attention

How the police feel is irrelevant, the fact is speed is enforced and DWDCA routinely isn't.

or that by having speed limits it somehow encourages people not to pay attention

It removes a thought process which makes a lot of people less safe.
The IAM, and other advanced driving systems are designed to make you think about your driving, which makes you safer.
Note that the IAM do not condone speeding.

Edukator - Reformed Troll

Every one involving a pedestrian or cyclist.

You've misread what I was pointing out.

poly - Member

What fraction? 4% (which I would call a significant rather than a tiny fraction) of them are directly caused by speed, it seems unlikely that speed doesn't exacerbate a measurable further number - so tell us what that is.

100%
No two stationary vehicles have ever collided together.

What % of KSI accidents would have had a less serious impact if the speeds involved were lower?

100%; see above.

What % of vehicles involved in KSI accidents were speeding immediately before the accident?

Don't know off the top of my head, but then that wasn't what was being discussed.

Your point was clear, it was just unsubstantiated, counter intuitive and probably intended to support a hypothesis you would prefer to be the case.

My point was and is clear.
I think we should spend more of our efforts prosecuting people that cause accidents rather than those that haven't.
I think that it is better to address the more prolific causes of problems than the more minor.

I think you've waded in and probably misunderstood my view point.

It's not like they're subtly camouflaged!

Tell that to the drivers nabbed by a camera hidden in a horsebox, Wales I think.
Not that I was one of them, I've always had a clean licence and intend to keep it that way. 🙂

I think you've waded in and probably misunderstood my view point.

Are you new here? (-:

[quote=sbob ]I think we should spend more of our efforts prosecuting people that cause accidents rather than those that haven't

No - what we should address is behaviour which causes accidents, not simply target those who've been unlucky. Otherwise we still have the situation that people think they won't ever cause an accident through their bad driving, so no matter how hard you come down on those who drive exactly the same but are unlucky that makes no difference to them.

(I'm not necessarily suggesting speeding is one of those things - in fact I'd suggest there are other aspects of driving behaviour which are more important to clamp down on).

So what is sbob's point exactly? Other than that I'm an idiot?

All we need to do is replace the entire contents of the highway code with a single short sentence: "don't be a dick" then all would be solved.

aracer - Member

No - what we should address is behaviour which causes accidents

They're not mutually exclusive.

Has sbob invented an inattention camera?

[url= http://viewsurf.com/univers/trafic/vue/7484-france-ile-de-france-paris-porte-maillot-vers-porte-des-ternes ]City Webcam[/url]

The car is an anti-social thing and when used anti-socially by going faster than the speed limit is more anti-social.

The faster a car goes the more noise it makes
The faster a car goes over 45mph (typical modern petrol engine) the more fuel it uses, and the more it pollutes
The faster a car goes the longer it takes to stop and the less time pedestrians and cyclists have to get out of the way should they be in the way.

Take a trip to a German town you'll find lots of 30kmh zones for noise limitation and pedestrian safety, with radars in many of them. I'd like that where I live.

The faster a car goes the longer it takes to stop and the less time pedestrians and cyclists have to get out of the way should they be in the way.

The car is an anti-social thing and when used anti-socially by going faster [s]than the speed limit[/s] is more anti-social.

Not sure what the speed limit has to do with this statement? What does a number on a pole have to do with anti-social behaviour?

The faster a car goes the more noise it makes

How would you feel about a speeding electric / hybrid car?

The faster a car goes the more noise it makes

How would you feel about a speeding electric / hybrid car?

I think much of the noise comes from the tyres tbh. I live on a 30mph road, and you wouldn't believe the amount of noise at night when you're trying to sleep with the window open. And it's mainly because much of the traffic is doing in excess of 50mph. You can pretty much estimate their speed by the noise level.

A lot of the traffic is actually slowing down here, having entered the 30 zone, so engines are quiet, unless going the other way...

Well in the German cases they've decided that the road and exhaust noise from cars is and issue. By putting a number on a pole and limiting the speed of car the noise is kept to a socially acceptable level. If you go faster than the speed on the pole you will make more noise - a level considered anti-social. You aren't thick, Cougar, acting thick when you aren't and demanding explication of the blindingly obvious is trolling.

As for the speeding hybrid or electric car, modern cars often make more road noise than exhaust noise, especially in the wet when at 50kmh road noise greatly exceeds exhaust noise. So I wouldn't feel any differently from a noise point of view. As for the safety aspect, a speeding electric/hybrid is no safer at high speed and possibly more dangerous at very low speed as pedestrians and cyclists can't hear the things coming.

A Zoe makes an amusing sci-fi noise at low speed so people are less likely to get run over in car parks. The first time one came up behind me on the shared pedestrian and car access to my local swimming pool I thought I was being buzzed by a drone or something.

The simple answer is if the dicks cannot or will not control their behaviour is to require all cars to have governors on them plus a GPS that records speeds.

Perhaps it's time to start asking our MPs to do something about it.

molgrips - Member

So what is sbob's point exactly?

There are better methods to improve road safety.

Other than that I'm an idiot?

You know I don't mean it. 😳

molgrips - Member

Has sbob invented an inattention camera?

That's the great thing about prosecuting people who have accidents; the very proof of a lack of attention is in the fact that they crashed. You don't need a string of cameras to catch people not having accidents. 🙂

That's the great thing about prosecuting people who have accidents; the very proof of a lack of attention is in the fact that they crashed. You don't need a string of cameras to catch people not having accidents.

The other way round actually. Once speed cameras are in place the cost of prosecution is small. A few letters back and forth does it usually. Its black and white. You were speeding.

With a 2 car crash there are grey areas. Crossed a give way? But the other car was speeding. Or that overgrown hedge blocked my view. Etc,etc.

So the result is careless driving charges are far more likely to result in a not guilty plea. Unlike the standard 3pts for most speeding cases careless driving is scale 3-9pts. More to lose. More chance of a not guilty plea.

When a careless driving case is being prepared there is more work for the police. Statements of all parties. Assuming no charges until statements are obtained then maybe as well as statements from driver and passengers there will be a need to arrange for cops from another area to charge the driver. Then a couple of hours in the office writing it up.

After this is done it needs to get court time. Competing with the assaults,drug offences, thefts, and domestics that are the bread and butter of some courts. What other charge should be dropped to make court time for the driving case? It will vary from place to place but in Glasgow in the 1980s and 90s it was pretty much a given that any 2 car non injury crash would be red penned by the PF.

So if the cop dealing with a crash knows that any case submitted is 95% certain to be marked "No Proceedings" what is he going do?. Charge the driver anyway or cut out the middle man and just do the accident report and leave it for the insurance companies to sort out? Getting him back on patrol or dealing with the other backlog of ongoing enquiries he has?

Maybe we should have a dedicated traffic dept? Nationwide the numbers of traffic cops have been cut. Not a high enough priority apparently. An easy target when the cuts are getting made. Traffic cop numbers down 23% in 4 yrs (Eng and Wales)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31260003

[quote=sbob ]That's the great thing about prosecuting people who have accidents; the very proof of a lack of attention is in the fact that they crashed. You don't need a string of cameras to catch people not having accidents.

You seem to be ignoring my point that solely prosecuting drivers who crash doesn't really do much for road safety.

That's the great thing about prosecuting people who have accidents; the very proof of a lack of attention is in the fact that they crashed.

A great concept, except for the fact that by the time they've crashed it's already a bit late. The idea is to encourage behaviour that might prevent crashes, rather than simply apportion blame afterwards.

aracer - Member

You seem to be ignoring my point that solely prosecuting drivers who crash doesn't really do much for road safety.

No, because no one has suggested that.
This is the post you must have missed:

sbob - Member

They're not mutually exclusive.