[Closed] Can you challenge over zealous speed limits?

Round Nottinghamshire the trick seems to be to reduce the speed limit for no reason and then get the speed cameras out in force.

Some of the examples are single carriageway roads reduced from NSL to 40 for no reason. There isnt even a building within a mile let alone anything else, the speed limit hadnt changed in 20 years in either case. It all just seems to be about raising revenue.

[i] It's so often used to justify stuff that isn't justifiable on closer inspection[/i]

It wsan't to [i]justify[/i] the bit I typed. It was in addition to it to save having to explain a load like what cougar just dun. 🙄
There ain't enough commonbleedinsense on the forum let alone on the roads!

Thanks for the explanation Cougar, it wasn't necessary though!

Like I said Dez, it wasn't a dig...

There ain't enough commonbleedinsense on the forum let alone on the roads!

Indeed. And this is why we have to have speed limits.

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. I don't envy that task, frankly.

"Speed kills" is an easy (and inefficient) solution to a complex problem. In the event of a collision speed absolutely increases the [i]severity [/i]of the outcome of course, but if people left adequate braking distances for the conditions of the traffic and of the road and looked where they were bloody going rather than fannying about on Facebook or eating a bowl of cereal then speed would make very little difference to the [i]incidence[/i] of collisions.

Surely it should be readily apparent that rather than focusing all our efforts on "oh, you've done 45 in a 40 zone despite it actually being perfectly safe, here's a £100 fine and three points," our time would be better spent teaching people how to drive in a straight line without ****ing hitting anything in the first place?

Thanks for the explanation Cougar, it wasn't necessary though!

Well, you did ask! (-:

Aside from people who only ever see perma-clogged motorways like the M25 at commuter times and are excused as they know nothing else, I can't believe I'm having to explain this stuff. There really should be a motorway section on the driving test.

I agree 100 % but unfortunately testing on Motorways is very unlikely to happen under the current driving test.

Simply as some parts of the U.K. don't have Motorways and the test has to be a " level playing field " nation wide. I've put level playing field in quotes as the Test is definatly not a level playing field now anyway. Some test centres have routes that don't take the candidate over 30 mph, other test centres go straight out onto 70 mph Dual Carraigeways.

Even on my instructor test, I only went 1 junction on a motorway.

Surely it should be readily apparent that rather than focusing all our efforts on "oh, you've done 45 in a 40 zone despite it actually being perfectly safe, here's a £100 fine and three points," our time would be better spent teaching people how to drive in a straight line without ****ing hitting anything in the first place?

Are all our efforts focused on speed reduction though? Or is it just the one aspect that gets peoples backs up*?

There's lots of other road safety initiatives going on, as well as road efficiency projects. Reducing speed limits/reducing speeding (two separate things) are just another tool in the box.

*Incidentally taking road space for cycle lanes seems to come with similar ire from our motorist kin in a lot of urban areas.

I think this thread might start going places now that the parking racist thread got shut, thanks to some choice phrasing by agent007.

Peyote - anything governments do to try to control the behaviour of car drivers, make them pay their way or to make them stick to the law is immediately greeted by a huge backlash with " war on motorist" headlines in the Daily Wail etc. So governments shy away from doing anything.

A car driver obeying the highway code is a very rare thing indeed. Even the best most considerate driver I have been with still didn't get it all right.

What broomstick for speeding ?

I think this thread might start going places now that the parking racist thread got shut, thanks to some choice phrasing by agent007.

Yet It seems that I was the one who had breached rules

unfortunately testing on Motorways is very unlikely to happen under the current driving test.

Testing, sure, but that doesn't prevent teaching if only in theory.

Are all our efforts focused on speed reduction though?

"All," maybe not, but it's surely the most prominent.

anything governments do to try to control the behaviour of car drivers, make them pay their way or to make them stick to the law is immediately greeted by a huge backlash with " war on motorist" headlines in the Daily Wail etc. So governments shy away from doing anything.

That may be part of it, but I'd hazard that the main reason is it's cheap and easy. Policing (as a random example) mobile phone usage requires, well, policing, and that's expensive. Speed is easy, slap up a camera and wait for the money to come rolling in.

To sort out this mess (and many others) we need bobbies on the beat, patrol cars on the roads, who can make sensible decisions and spot dangers. And no-one wants to pay for that.

no-one wants to pay for that.

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

Going by the lengths people go to avoid bans it more points that are needed not bigger fines.

So make any speeding offence 6pts.

Abolish all special pleading/defences. If your job depends on your licence don't get caught speeding.

The biggest change I've seen in a person's driving was when a speeding/tailgating colleague got a speeding ticket and a mobile phone ticket in the same month. The realisation that she was one similar month away from a ban had her driving at the speed limit without a phone.

The rarity of this can be judged by the way I heard a defence lawyer told his client he'd need to "drive like an angel" for the next 3 years after getting his 3rd 3pts.

Going by the lengths people go to avoid bans it more points that are needed not bigger fines.

£1000 fines are never going to happen. For an offence causing potential danger? People get fined far less than that when their bad driving has actually seriously injured or killed someone.

He ran over and killed 78-year-old Sylvia Roach after mounting the pavement as she walked a friend’s dog along Guildford Road in March, the court heard.

Farooqi was fined £560 and had six penalty points added to his licence which already carried six points for separate speeding offences.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/anger-mounting-over-killer-driver-4836818

Peyote - anything governments do to try to control the behaviour of car drivers, make them pay their way or to make them stick to the law is immediately greeted by a huge backlash with " war on motorist" headlines in the Daily Wail etc. So governments shy away from doing anything.

All true I'm afraid TJ. The motor lobby is a powerful force and it's backed up by a significant (majority) population of the country, so anything that penalises them is frowned on. "There but for the grace of god" and all that.

Only when we appreciate the negative impact of motoring (KSIs, pollution, social segregation etc.) fully will we start to recognise the responsibility associated with it and then start to control the negative aspects properly.

Behaviour modifcation with points worse. I collected 6 last summer. ( go onhave a good laugh at me) any more and no more hire cars for me. so no more speeding either. Not even an MPH

Both speeding tickets unfortunate but no one but myself to blame. My foot on the pedal

I'd go for immediate bans for mobile usage - just a 3 month, Immediate jail for drink drivers ( maybe only if significantly over the limit?)- no excuse. 3 pts for illegal parking, 4 for speeding

More significantly I would leke to see much more eforcement - a dedicated traffic police with it being cost neutral IE the money made in fines pays for the cops. Fines should be much bigger say £250 for speeding or if you cant pay you can accept a ban instead or have your car crushed

[i]both of which I'm sure would decimate an old, heavy Kwakker 900cc....[/I]

It wasn't a B model.

About 1 min in, all you speed haterz ignore the vid 🙂

Sounds like it, but I think you missed the : Commonbleedinsense bit
Nope, I chose to ignore it. It's so often used to justify stuff that isn't justifiable on closer inspection (that wasn't a dig, just one of my own bugbears).

@Cougar:

, but if people left adequate braking distances for the conditions of the traffic and of the road and looked where they were bloody going rather than fannying about on Facebook or eating a bowl of cereal then speed would make very little difference to the incidence of collisions.

So make any speeding offence 6pts.

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

I'd be basing my agreement with cougar on experience.

Anecdotal evidence, nothing better?

Anecdotal evidence, nothing better?

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?