[Closed] Can you challenge over zealous speed limits?

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.

So you're just suggesting doing something pointless in addition to something useful? How much of your resources from the useful thing do you propose diverting to the pointless one?

molgrips - Member

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.

Well closing all the prisons would free up a bit more cash for policing. 🙄

We have punishments to act precisely as a deterrent.
Without the punishment you end up with ridiculous notions like having a car crash is "a bit unlucky".

Crashing your car isn't down to bad luck, or voodoo, or the alignment of the stars, it's down to shit driving.
At the moment the message is as long as you stay under the limit, you're ok.

At the moment the message is as long as you stay under the limit, you're ok.

Hmm.. you might have a point there.

But we know what the reason for that is - they haven't the manpower to enforce much, whereas speed cameras are cheap.

However the point is - speed limits are still important.

aracer - Member

So you're just suggesting doing something pointless

No, because I don't believe it's pointless.
You might, but then you think crashing cars is down to bad luck so I'm not sure your opinion on the subject should be given too much weight.

I'm not sure you've really considered your position, that we should not punish people for committing crimes, but we should punish people for not committing a crime (if you take away the speeding itself). It's like minority report except you've taken it one step further.

irc -

FPNs for careless, big ones but with a large discount from taking it to court. It happens in other countries. Points on the licence sends the right message.

You might, but then you think crashing cars is down to bad luck

Don't be silly. That's absurd.

Crashing cars isn't bad luck, being crashed into is.

I've had five collisions in as many years. In three I was stationary, in the other two I wasn't even in the car.

[quote=sbob ]No, because I don't believe it's pointless.

So you think that prosecuting people causing crashes will improve road safety - despite all the evidence suggesting that people don't think their bad driving will cause a crash, so such prosecutions have no effect on their behaviour?

You might, but then you think crashing cars is down to bad luck

Go on then, where exactly have I suggested that? And in anticipation of selective quoting if you're going to quote me in reply please quote the whole paragraph (in the process you could try and understand what I'm suggesting, as with that response it appears you've failed to get the point).

I'm not sure you've really considered your position, that we should not punish people for committing crime

On the contrary - I'm suggesting prosecuting all people committing crimes in the same way, whilst you appear to want to select based upon the consequences of the crime.

aracer - Member

So you think that prosecuting people causing crashes will improve road safety

Yes.

despite all the evidence suggesting that people don't think their bad driving will cause a crash

People don't realise their driving is bad,

so such prosecutions have no effect on their behaviour?

and they're not going to if we don't let them know, by way of prosecution.

Go on then, where exactly have I suggested that? And in anticipation of selective quoting if you're going to quote me in reply please quote the whole paragraph (in the process you could try and understand what I'm suggesting, as with that response it appears you've failed to get the point).

OK.

I said:

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

You replied with:

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.

So the "no" is a total disagreement with me. You then qualify that with "not simply target those who've been unlucky" which is a statement directly contrasting mine about people who have accidents.

You have clearly related people having accidents to being unlucky.

And you clearly do it again:
"Otherwise we still have the situation that people think they won't ever cause an accident through their bad driving"
This statement is referring to drivers that are shit but haven't had an accident so don't quite realise it.
Followed by:
"so no matter how hard you come down on those who drive exactly the same"
Same driving; no difference. Good good.
"but are unlucky that makes no difference to them"
So what outcome does this bad luck have?

I'm sure you can understand my confusion, as we were talking about two groups of drivers; one group that hasn't crashed and one group that has.
If you're changing the group of drivers who have crashed into a group of drivers that are unlucky, but haven't crashed then you probably should have explained that more clearly as it:
A) doesn't read anything like that.
and
B) doesn't make any sense to do that.

On the contrary - I'm suggesting prosecuting all people committing crimes in the same way, whilst you appear to want to select based upon the consequences of the crime.

Not only is that wrong, but I have already pointed out where you are wrong.

[quote=sbob ]People don't realise their driving is bad

Good point, that too (though I think most people know they shouldn't play with their phone whilst driving). Thanks for strengthening my point - prosecuting people who have crashes has absolutely no effect on improving the standard of driving of those who don't even realise they are bad drivers, hence won't improve road safety. QED.

and they're not going to if we don't let them know, by way of prosecution.

Except you're not prosecuting them under your system - not the people who are bad drivers but haven't yet had a crash.

You have clearly related people having accidents to being unlucky.

No, I relate people having crashes to people driving badly and being unlucky. You imply that I've suggested that people having crashes are just people who are unlucky, which is something different and not at all what I said, hence the context being important.

I'm sure you can understand my confusion, as we were talking about two groups of drivers; one group that hasn't crashed and one group that has.

Well no, you seem to want to make that distinction by only focusing on those who have crashed. In reality there is a single group of bad drivers. It is those we should be concentrating on.

I am surprised that I have to explain this to you - there are thousands of drivers every day who don't have a crash despite doing exactly the same thing as those who do. It is simply a matter of chance that there wasn't a pedestrian crossing the road when they were looking at their phone, the cyclist they passed too close didn't wobble, a car didn't come round the blind corner as they were overtaking, there wasn't a stationary queue of traffic in the fog in front of them, etc. etc. The thing is it's actually very rare that such things do all come together and a crash results for an individual driver. Yet tomorrow they might, so what we need to do is address the bad driving which is the ultimate cause of crashes [b]whether or not it resulted in a crash today[/b]

Not only is that wrong, but I have already pointed out where you are wrong.

Are you suggesting that doing all these bad driving things is only a crime if the pedestrian is crossing the road, cyclist wobbles, car comes the other way or there's a stationary queue?

Good point, that too (though I think most people know they shouldn't play with their phone whilst driving). Thanks for strengthening my point - prosecuting people who have crashes has absolutely no effect on improving the standard of driving of those who don't even realise they are bad drivers, hence won't improve road safety. QED.

You pre-emptively suggest I'll use selective quoting, then go on to do just that.
Strong move, if a little ridiculous.
As is your "logic":

Prosecuting one group will have no effect on a different group so we shouldn't bother

I could present it in many analogous situations to more clearly demonstrate the silliness, but I don't think I need to.

Except you're not prosecuting them under your system - not the people who are bad drivers but haven't yet had a crash.

Do I need to explain the phrase "not mutually exclusive" to you? It appears you do not understand what it means because you keep repeating the same false statement.

sbob -

You have clearly related people having accidents to being unlucky.

aracer -
no

I relate people having crashes to people driving badly and being unlucky

Oh, so you do relate people having crashes to being unlucky after all!
You're saying there are shit drivers, and unlucky shit drivers, but only the latter group have accidents. If the shit drivers aren't having accidents then it must be down to bad luck, it's the only difference between the two groups.

It's such a ridiculous view, coupled with the fact that you keep insisting I have a different opinion to the one I have, and have explained, repeatedly, that I'm g...................snore.

FPNs for careless, big ones but with a large discount from taking it to court. It happens in other countries. Points on the licence sends the right message.

A few years ago the law was changed so that FPs could be issued for careless driving.

https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/fixed-penalty

Couldn't swear to it but there may have been guidance that FPs were not to be used for accident cases but for things like tailgating etc.

[quote=sbob ]If the shit drivers aren't having accidents then it must be down to bad luck, it's the only difference between the two groups.

I even helpfully explained why it's down to bad luck. Do you really not get that there is lots of rubbish driving going on which doesn't cause accidents? Do I also need to point out that the rubbish driver who has been lucky so far might be unlucky tomorrow?

So to summarize, accidents are caused by voodoo and you're not sure if we should punish people or not.
Useful, very useful.

Merry Christmas.

Have you made any attempt at all to understand what I've written?

If you two weren't brimming over with passive agression, you might be able to actually communicate your points. Neither of which are bad, from what I can tell.

Be nice 🙂

I understand the point he's making (whilst he was still making a point rather than attacking me), I simply disagree with it in essence, because whilst I'm not suggesting that those causing accidents shouldn't be prosecuted, all the evidence suggests that on its own it does very little to improve road safety - because as we seem to agree most drivers don't think they're bad drivers and going to cause an accident, so their driving behaviour is unaffected by such punishments.

I'm not sure sbob has tried to understand or engage with my point at all.

At work I have to re-take some standard training every year. Everyone in the company does.

Perhaps we should have annual mandatory refreshers for driving?

Id' be up for that.

[img] [/img]

aracer - Member

Have you made any attempt at all to understand what I've written?

Have you? 😛

molgrips - Member

At work I have to re-take some standard training every year. Everyone in the company does.

Perhaps we should have annual mandatory refreshers for driving?

It's lapsed now, but one of the reasons I preferred RoSPA to IAM is that it's continuous.
If I return to driving I'll be seeking tuition first.

molgrips - Member
At work I have to re-take some standard training every year. Everyone in the company does.

Perhaps we should have annual mandatory refreshers for driving?

Maybe instead some practical lesson in physics, eg momemtum, coefficients of friction etc.

Going back to the subject of the OP. The thing to do if a speed limit (or any TMO) is implemented that you want to query is send a friendly email to the council/traffic authority asking them for the reason they made the change. This would quite likely provide some clarity on the way forward rather than resorting to 2nd guessing or randomly ranting about stuff.

Don't start with an FOI, they are a fallback option if the authority does not co-operate with an informal request.

Oh and if you do want to travel free from the restriction of speed limits then then you just need to cycle, speed limits do not apply to bicycles (unless you are cycling in a royal park).

Watched this lastnight and came away thinking the he's a bit of a shit driver in a fast car. And there are no speed cameras.

^so re captainsasquatch's video, just so I'm clear, is that acceptable 'driving to the conditions' or unacceptable driving? - because once you allow driver discretion I don't know how you'd tell.