Forum menu
Agree and that is where people may differ from what is seen as reasonable risk.
The number of accidents deaths and injuries on our roads serves to show that people are poor judges of risk.
I agree with poly tbh. Having cruise and sticking within limits does make driving much less stressful.
Bring on the self driving cars tbh then you know you won't be running the gauntlet with someone who has judged that they are running late and 90mph won't hurt anyone....
I am a massive fan of the average speed cameras on the Dundee to Aberdeen road. Yes it's shit it takes 10 minutes extra to do..... But it used to be lethal trying to join the road or even overtake a tractor..... was the car coming up doing 50 or 110 (no exaggeration it was common) it's actually civilised now and stress free.
The number of accidents deaths and injuries on our roads serves to show that people are poor judges of risk.
I am not talking about judgement of risk, I am talking about acceptable level of death/reasonable level of risk as a whole not on a personal risk basis.
The number for you is too high at what around 1700 deaths a year.
Speed limit of 15mph and guessing that number would be down to single figures, speed limit of 50mph everywhere and it would be many times what it is now.
I am not talking about judgement of risk, I am talking about acceptable level of death/reasonable level of risk as a whole not on a personal risk basis.
The problem I have with that is their acceptable may not be mine. But shit the bed your decision to speed based on what's acceptable to you has taken away (without their consent to get involved ) someone's life if you make a mistake -and everyone makes mistakes at some point.
You get on the road you consented to the risk of the posted speed limit not someone else's interpretation of it
And yes there will still be accidents but accidents but on the terms you signed up to when you started your journey.
And I will hold my hands up-it took me a few years after passing my test to realise this and it's largely one of the reasons I've not owned a fast car or motorbike as I wouldn't trust my self not to just give it a squeeze because let's face it-whats the point in a fast car if you can't.
I've had a go in a few on tracks and I can see the attraction but I can also see why folks have the temptation when it's there and why many folk do end up speeding. Many of today's cars feel too safe at speed. -an RS4 at 100mph on track barely feels like it's trying.
100mph in a 206 GTi feels like your re-entering orbit.
At least it was your own car and there was no cheeking of the policeman, that didn't go well for Mr Toad 😯
The problem I have with that is their acceptable may not be mine.
So repeating myself, the number for you is too high at what around 1700 deaths a year.
Speed limit of 15mph and guessing that number would be down to single figures, speed limit of 50mph everywhere and it would be many times what it is now.
What would you do to match your acceptable number of deaths/lower the risk?
So my choice is between strawman arguement 1 and strawman arguement 2
Neither of which look particularly appealing.
Also 1700 deaths but inclusive of serious injury it suddenly becomes 25000.
Speeding is not dangerous.
Bad driving is dangerous and driving too fast for the situation is bad driving.
I wish people would accept that instead of this speeding kills mantra, which is bollocks.
(not that I’m stating you are saying that )
haha, ok. what a gem.
What would you do to match your acceptable number of deaths/lower the risk?
Adequate enforcement would be a good start. There are 1.6m uninsured/unlicensed drivers out there, simply because the risk of getting pinged is so small. These are responsible for 20% of all incidents so removing even a proportion of these would reduce the risk significantly.
Accompanying music.
Also 1700 deaths but inclusive of serious injury it suddenly becomes 25000.
The serious category is pretty broad though. A broken pinky is a serious injury according to the guidelines.
I'm sure it also covers injuries such as broken spines and necks as well .
But I guess it's easier to ignore it and just look at deaths as that's an easier number to self justify speeding
Keeping it perspective we have among the safest roads in the world. Third safest by this article.
https://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2016/11/top-10-countries-with-the-safest-roads.html
Not perfect of course. I would suggest removing the special circumstances excuse for avoiding a ban at 12pts. If your job is that vital obey the law.
Instant ban for using a handheld mobile. As dangerous as driving at the legal alcohol limit.
By and large though we do well in the UK.
My van weighed 2.8 tonne and had 45 horsepower (at the crank) when it left the Leyland Daf factory. Add 30 years, 180,000 miles and a campervan body on the back and it makes for quite a sedate drive!
It's slow but you just trundle along. You get where you're going not too much later than in a faster vehicle. Most of the things slowing you down are junctions, traffic lights, queues etc and a more powerful motor doesn't make much difference there
Need your license for your job....
Here have a moped license.
Need your license for your job….
Here have a moped license.
Can't agree with that, at least give them 4 wheels otherwise they'll start enjoying the pleasures of avoiding
Most of the things slowing you down are junctions, traffic lights, queues etc
The French "drunks cars" would be ideal.
Need your license for your job….
Tough shit, you should have thought of that sooner.
I’m fairly sure loss of job isn’t considered ‘exceptional hardship’ - see here
Indirectly it is. From your link
Risk to family home and inability to meet debts; Allan v Barclay
Presumably it was loss of job that would mean losing home.
Despite having lost my dad at the age of 4 in a car accident I’ve managed to retain my perspective.
Six in my case. Speeding has not been good for my family. My father was the son of a Jaguar Cars racing team test driver and mechanic. Speed was inherent. The UK has seen an impressive improvement in driving safety. But there is still much to do.
Likelihood of being caught is the single biggest factor in driver behaviour. If you drove as if your licence (and livelihood) depended on it, you'd drive better.
I don’t think people think they’re going to get caught, as witnessed by the dickheads racing on the M60 this evening by Ashton.
There’s a lot of talk about stiffer sentencing as a deterrent, but no-one imagines they’re going to be in a crash or get done.
Not perfect of course. I would suggest removing the special circumstances excuse for avoiding a ban at 12pts. If your job is that vital obey the law.
I've found myself thinking a lot lately that simple solutions are a poor answer to complex questions.
Back in the mid-90s I got stopped by the police. They pulled me over because a PNC check had shown the vehicle as unregistered or unowned or something. This was understandable as I'd literally just bought it, I'd driven about 100 yards away from the garage forecourt when they pulled me, possibly not even that far. "Fair enough sir, here's a producer, on your way."
Took my documents to the local nick, got told "your insurance isn't valid."
Wait, what? Turned out, the new insurance policy didn't start until noon that day and I got pulled about 20 minutes earlier. I had no idea.
I was in my 20s, absolutely shat myself about the idea of going to court so submitted a plea in absence along with a wordier version of the explanation above. I naively thought "it's an honest mistake, not a court in the land would convict me!" Nope, 90 quid fine and six points.
I later got a speeding ticket (in addition to the one I already had) and ended up "eligible for disqualification". I tried the Exceptional Hardship plea, my mum was very poorly and reliant on me for lifts. The beak ruled that whilst he agreed with my argument that there was Hardship, it wasn't Exceptional and I walked away with a six month ban and a hefty fine. So I can anecdotally confirm that this isn't argument they simply bend over for (unless presumably you're a footballer or a Tory politician).
Now, I hold my hand up, of course it was my own silly fault and I should've been more careful when I already had nine points on my licence. But the point of this ramble is, had events occurred in a different order and I'd already earned two SP30s in three years before getting legged up the way I did then I would have found myself in the same position.
And yes of course it'd still be my fault. I should've checked the documents, but I was young and excited about my new car and rather expected that when I walked into an insurance broker going "can I have some insurance please?" and they go "certainly sir, that will be a large amount of money, sign here" then I'd be leaving with insurance. Shit happens and 'ignorance is no defence' but the totting up process is not always just because you've been driving like you stole it for the last three years.
A couple of replies from earlier.
Pedantic point, but surely in that case it would have been an SP50? 😉
You are quite correct and that's a good point. Thank you for the correction.
going over by 5 or 6mph is a bit of a joke, in that the speedometer in cars has to have a bit of leeway.
They do and they have, most (GPS aside) are out by 5-10mph. But, they are only allowed to overread, it is illegal for them to underread. So if you've got caught doing 36 in a 30 your speedo was almost certainly showing North of 40.
I promise anyone who consistently speeds because they are rushing around and believe they have a better judgement on the right speed – if you make a concerted effort to drive at or below the speed limit rather than just trying to get ahead after you do it enough to build the habit you will find driving less stressful/frustrating. I’ve spoken to plenty of people who found themselves in this boat perhaps because they had 9 pts and couldn’t risk 35 in a 30 or 80 on the motorway, or they have a job where even 3 pts was going to be awkward, or they just decide to calm down… try it – after a week or so it’s not as hard as persistent speeders would have you believe.
I completely agree, in my case i just got used to doing 62mph, as that’s what my coach can do, but after 18 years of it, if i actually reach 70mph it feels fast to me.
It doesn’t seem to add any significant time to journeys either.
was the car coming up doing 50 or 110 (no exaggeration it was common) it’s actually civilised now and stress free.
This is absolutely true, i drive for citylink/megabus, our drivers used to call the early morning 6am from dundee to aberdeen ‘the wacky races’
It’s calmed down considerably since the cameras went in.
An uncle of mine had an accident a number of years ago down near derby. He was driving a capri at high speed, beyond the motorway limits, when in the dark they came upon a daf/leyland artic that had jacknifed and was at right angles to the lanes. He had no time to avoid or stop and hit it beam on.
At this time there were no safety skirts between the front and trailer rear wheels so he aimed mid center and went under it, taking the entire roof off the capri.
He was injured with some shattered vertebra in his neck leading to partial paralysis, and about a dozen operations, culminating in the upper vertebra being fused with steel rods, so he cannot turn his head without it involving his shoulders too. there were 3 in the car. Other front seat was his mate who sustained minor injuries, some broken bones and my cousin who was sleeping in the rear. They had been down taking said cousin to check out a couple of universities where he was going to undertake teacher training. I think cousin was bashed about a bit, but due to being asleep and already tucked down below the level of the roof, was pretty much uninjured. Uncle and his mate had tried to scrunch down laying as flat as they could in the seconds before impact.
According to the police, who were aware of his high speed, that had they not been travelling at full speed and not been in a Capri, which was low due to its sloping roof, their car wouldnt have made to right trough and out the other side, and would have likely come to a dead stop, probably killing the front driver/passenger at least. They said he hit it at about 80mph, and emerged the other side at under 20mph. Quite a deceleration all the same.
It took DAF/Leyland several years and several court cases to finally admit the fault was theirs, in that there had been issues with the air brakes on the truck, seemingly coming on by themselves sending the truck out of control.
As such there was a very very large compensation payout, although that only helps slightly given the loss of neck movement, pain, x number of operations on the spine, et all, and the loss of the ability to work forevermore and I think it limits life expectancy. At least i remember that being discussed(was young at the time)
Nobody is saying speeding is ok, but here is a example of it and how it saved the lives of 2-3 men.
You've gotta admit though, that's a pretty fringe case and also a good example of "always be able stop in the distance you can see".
Plus, no disrespect an' all, but there's a lot to question here. Not least of all, physics. But if he'd almost killed himself and two others then "the police said it was a good job I was going so fast" might be something one would want to say to their families. And who is "the police" here, the lead accident investigator or some random bobby? Does it say that in the report?
Going faster might well have meant they cheated death, I don't know, but going slower might well have avoided it completely.
I'm sorry but something doesn't sit quite right here. How did he not see it?
Likelihood of being caught is the single biggest factor in driver behaviour. If you drove as if your licence (and livelihood) depended on it, you’d drive better.
Agree and in my experience over the last 30 years I would say there are a lot less traffic police just driving around. Relying on speed camera's that the majority of people just slow down for and then speed up again once passed is not really policing the roads is it.
They do and they have, most (GPS aside) are out by 5-10mph.
When I did my speed awareness course I was told this is an urban myth...modern car speedos are not far out. On my 4 year old Volvo, the speed indicated is 1-2 mph over GPS indicated speed. My 28 year old Landie, on the other hand...hard to tell cos the needle wobbles so much but at least 5mph over
If not, there’s no need for a suit, but dress respectfully (flip flops, football strips, manky boiler suits are likely to see you told to go get changed).
Really…?
Surely we have got beyond this point? I would dress smartly, but that would be my preference. I’m not sure that viewing people differently and negatively who don’t effectively ‘dress up’ for the hearing is reasonable today.
I’m fairly sure loss of job isn’t considered ‘exceptional hardship’
You are correct that in normal circumstances loss of employment alone would not be considered exceptional hardship, but if loss of employment has nock on effects it can be, provided those effects are truely exceptional. The financial crash skewed what was considered exceptional and I assume covid will do the same at least briefly.
Instant ban for using a handheld mobile. As dangerous as driving at the legal alcohol limit.
Just holding something in your hand isn't dangerous so the law re mobile phone usage is utterly stupid. Making phone calls whilst driving is distracting and should have been banned completely.
I’m not sure that viewing people differently and negatively who don’t effectively ‘dress up’ for the hearing is reasonable today.
It's not, but think about who your typical magistrate is - older white male with traditional upbringing and traditional career where they've worn a suit every day. Golf player. Married. Two new cars. Mortgage free.
Exactly the kind of person who judges based on appearance. I know a couple of magistrates and both fit the stereotype described above (one is a rabid anti-vaxxer and anti-lockdown campaigner which shows just how much critical thinking is involved in the job).
Really…?
Surely we have got beyond this point? I would dress smartly, but that would be my preference. I’m not sure that viewing people differently and negatively who don’t effectively ‘dress up’ for the hearing is reasonable today.
If you make it into the dock and your hearing proceeds what you wear makes no difference (mags court is a sausage factory and I’m sure if you ask a mag 2 hrs after a case what colour jumper Mr Jones was wearing unless it’s truely exceptional they’ll not remember). But if you turn up dressed inappropriately for court (which may be subjective to the particular court!) you may not make it as far as the dock, or the court may not hear your case.
This is a world where your solicitor will not be allowed to address the court unless he is wearing a tie and (certainly in Scotland) a gown. You can look at this and say it’s OTT 19th century nonsense, and just turning up should be recognised as better than average, but it keeps the formality and decorum of the court. People frequently appear in joggies, trainers, whatever they were wearing when they got arrested last night, so it’s not like there is a particularly high bar to cross to be accepted. It’s like the dress code to get into Nando’s rather than a Michelin star restaurant.
Football tops may be more tolerable in some parts of the country and depending how contentious the loyalties may be. On the other hand few people are surprised to hear that the naked rambler was not permitted to appear in the dock naked.
You’ll also not be allowed to bring food, drink, your kids (except very small babies), etc into court and if you are a gum chewer are likely to be asked to spit it out like at school! You’ll be expected to standup when speaking to the bench, or when being spoken to by the bench. It’s an intimidating place. The more “senior” the court the more intimidating it gets but the dress code for people in the dock is about the same.
Two new cars. Mortgage free
Mrs TiRed is asking why our newest car is 12 years old and we have a mortgage the size of a small country nations debt? As for clothing. They won’t notice. They are only interested in “reasonable” excuses. Distance travelled, genuine emergency. Lateness is not a factor. A dash to hospital with a woman giving birth, and a totting 12 points is unlikely to see you with a ban. Taking your kid to a cricket match will.
They do and they have, most (GPS aside) are out by 5-10mph.
When I did my speed awareness course I was told this is an urban myth
True or not*, it's only ever used in a way that helps the speeder justify their speeding, or to make out that it wasn't their fault that they were (caught) speeding.
e.g. you'll hear
"Ah, but speedos are out by 5-10mph so a real 30mph might be indicated as 40mph. And then you can add on the 10% plus 'a few' leeway, and then I could be doing an indicated 45mph and be safe from punishment"
And also
"Ah, but speedos are out by 5-10mph so a real 30mph might be indicated as 20mph, so if i do an indicated 30mph i could unwittingly be speeding and then get punished, which isn't fair, so the limits shouldn't be strictly (i.e.31mph=3 points) enforced."
But you'll never hear
"Ah, but speedos are out by 5-10mph so I always drive an indicated 10mph under the limit".
* I don't believe modern speedos are out by 10mph. If they were then you'd have some people doing 20 in a 30 and others doing 40, and that kind of speed difference would be obvious. Plus people I know in person who've been caught always say "I didn't realise the limit had changed" or "It had only just changed and I was still slowing down" or "I was doing 80 in a 50 but didn't think there would be a camera there". I don't know anyone who's got a fine when they genuinely thought they were below the correct limit.
I think the nuance of the speedo overeading quote has been lost, we all know they overead by about 10% and the original quote isn't from someone defending speeding.
What's more interesting is my last Ford you could prove it. If you sat at a steady speed on the motorway and hit the computer reset, it would show you your "average" speed, which always agreed with the GPS. For whatever reason the computer in the dash (even "analogue" clocks are controlled by a computer) was setup to give the margin of error you expect there to be but the oddometer and other functions were using the accurate data.
Current berlingo seems closer to being accurate as I think it's got the biggest tyre option. Swapping to the winter option gave it something close to the usual over reading.
Agree with the principal though, you need to be doing an indicated 40+ to get caught in a 30. I know, because I have (at the time I'd have argued that the NSL sign was in a daft place half a mile out of the village down a steep hill with 100ft wide verges, but limits are limits).
I've no idea to the full details of it. I was a kid and not privvy to them, but it was said by my uncle that thats what the police had said, which was probably due to him actually surviving it. Maybe the traffic police as an after thought, but who knows for sure. Again not privvy to who was who really.
Also, I remember them saying it was around a bend and it wasnt lit up or visible to the very last seconds, but again, not privvy and it was a very long time back.
I was hoping that there being many here from down that way someone would have remembered it as it made the papers, wrecked car and all. Maybe be about 35 years back 😕
@Grobs
Merely holding something in your hand may not be dangerous. Holding a smsrtphone is.
Haven't read the whole thread so I feel fully entitles to spout my advice.
Unless you are looking at a almost certain ban then admit guilt in writing and don't go in person.
If it is a letter that they look at then they will deal with it quickly and mostly dispassionately.
If you turn up you may offend or anger them by saying the wrong thing, having the wrong clothes on, wearing the wrong aftershave... It doesn't matter what you do, you are more likely to antagonise them than please them. They are unlikely to make a big public shaming statement to a letter but if you are there in person they have someone to shout at.
If you turn up you may offend or anger them by saying the wrong thing, having the wrong clothes on, wearing the wrong aftershave… It doesn’t matter what you do, you are more likely to antagonise them than please them.
Plenty of people manage to write things in a letter plea which make things (sound?) worse. Things like "I was really upset having broken up with my girlfriend earlier that day and wasn't paying attention" may sound like something magistrates will take pitty on, and some might, but its equally as likely to provoke a "well you shouldn't have been driving at all" response.
They are unlikely to make a big public shaming statement to a letter but if you are there in person they have someone to shout at
If the speed is high enough to justify a public shaming (and even then they are fairly minimal, the court has wat too many cases to spend more than 1 minute explaining their sentence to you, and legal advisors generally spend that time hoping the JP doesn't say anything which gives them the paperwork of an appeal to sort out!) then you'll be getting called in to discuss a potential ban.
When I did my speed awareness course I was told this is an urban myth
I can't possibly imagine why that might be.
True or not*, it’s only ever used in a way that helps the speeder justify their speeding
...
But you’ll never hear “Ah, but speedos are out by 5-10mph so I always drive an indicated 10mph under the limit”.
Did you read my post? I've already answered both of these.
it keeps the formality and decorum of the court.
And demonstrates resepct.
A dash to hospital with a woman giving birth
Why not call an ambulance?
Granted this is likely geography-dependent, but one of the things they're quite good at is getting people to hospital quickly. The last time I had cause to call one (for my dad), by the time I'd got my shoes on they'd beaten me to the door.
There seems to be a very bizarre, entitled & privileged attitude around motoring in this country.
Almost as if it’s an inalienable right to drive.
It’s not a right - it’s a privilege granted by the passing of your test..
Harsher sentencing might remind some that said privilege can & will be taken away. Somehow I doubt it though - the car is king in this country dare anyone come between me & my motor! 🤬
Why not call an ambulance?
Granted this is likely geography-dependent, but one of the things they’re quite good at is getting people to hospital quickly. The last time I had cause to call one (for my dad), by the time I’d got my shoes on they’d beaten me to the door.
Very much geography dependant.
We called an ambulance for a suspected stroke, the 1st responder was there in a few minutes, he called for more support, all that was available was an emergency paramedic in a LR Discovery, it was an hour and a half before we got an ambulance that could actually take someone to hospital.
It’s not a right – it’s a privilege granted by the passing of your test..
Yep, be interesting to see the result if any offence was a 6 month ban. Can't see anywhere near as many people speeding if getting caught is a ban rather than 3 points/awareness course.
Some still will of course just like some drink and drive but the numbers would surely go down a lot.
Harsher sentencing might remind some that said privilege can & will be taken away. Somehow I doubt it though – the car is king in this country dare anyone come between me & my motor!
I've said it before and so I might as well say it again. The harshness of the sentence is not really the problem, yes some people get off lighter than they perhaps should but the vast majority of people get off scot-free because they never get caught at all. High sentences are not a deterrent if the probability of getting caught is tiny.
Why not call an ambulance?
That's one of the questions the magistrates would ask, perhaps along with whether or not saving 5 minutes was going to make that big a difference. But even in big cities, there are times when ambulances can have significant waiting times.
Yep, be interesting to see the result if any offence was a 6 month ban. Can’t see anywhere near as many people speeding if getting caught is a ban rather than 3 points/awareness course.
I don't know what the stats are for people who get 9 pts getting caught again v's people with 0 or 3 pts. I suspect the "I'll not get caught" belief is ingrained.
we all know they overead by about 10%
By the way - they don't all overread by 10%. They are permitted to overread by by up to 10% (and never underread). Brand new car with brand new tyres and I am agreeing with GPS on the motorway at 50/60/70 with a maximum error of 2mph! The underread + 10% + 2mph people would have you believe that driving at an indicated 70 in a 60 is always fine because the care will only be doing 63, and you'll never get prosecuted for that. In reality, its doing over the magic 68mph threshold.