49mph in a 40mph limit

Cougar – Moderator

Google would suggest that Montana is 381,154 km² with a population of 1.024 million. The UK is 243,610 km² with a population of over 64 billion. I’d posit that reducing our population density by a factor of a hundred thousand would have a far greater impact on road safety than any changes to speed limits.

Quoted for lols.

Bit early for you Cougar? 😆

a population of over 64 billion

Ummm, you sure about your multiplier?

Ummm, you sure about your multiplier?

I didn’t spend a vast of time working it out, have I gone wrong?

Bit of an assumption isn’t it? Surely if he’s abiding by the legal limits then it’s basing a decision on the road designers, traffic engineers, road police etc. People who speed think they know better than the professionals, hence they speed. Superiority assumption I guess.

The assumption is that professionals are always involved.

Peyote – Member

Bit of an assumption isn’t it?

History dictates.

Surely if he’s abiding by the legal limits then it’s basing a decision on the road designers, traffic engineers, road police etc.

Great example not only of the “within speed limit=safe” attitude that we have unfortunately bred, but also of the dangers of removing personal responsibility.

People who speed think they know better than the professionals, hence they speed. Superiority assumption I guess.

Don’t be under the assumption that I’m suggesting we should all drive faster.

KSIs on UK roads have been a lovely straight line of decay for decades. Millions of speeding tickets have had absolutely zero positive effect, and may have been detrimental to road safety.

You’re saying that KSI has reduced during a period of increased speeding enforcement?

billion

😯

I thought there were about a million times more people on the road this morning.

alternative facts folks, tremendous stuff.

Ah, ballcocks, I see what you mean. 😳

The point is still valid though – reducing the population density by a factor of a hundred would still have quite an effect, the two areas aren’t directly comparable.

I pay road tax, I’ll drive as fast as I want.

ransos – Member

You’re saying that KSI has reduced during a period of increased speeding enforcement?

No.
I’m saying that a period of increased speeding enforcement has had no positive effect on the declining trend of KSIs.

I’m also saying that it was quite obvious what I meant.

I’ll further that by saying your post is an obvious troll, and you know it.

Cougar – Moderator

The point is still valid though – reducing the population density by a factor of a hundred would still have quite an effect, the two areas aren’t directly comparable.

Which is why I would encourage all of you to take a look at your lifestyle choices and reduce your driving as much as possible.
I appreciate that there are many for whom it is not practical to completely forego car ownership as I have done, but we can all make a difference.

I always end up posting on these threads when I really shouldn’t as my opinion is biased from personal experience. I’m a big believer in sticking to the speed limits. There are too many variables involved for an individual car driver to assume what’s safe and I believe that’s partly why the limits are needed.

As I said I’m biased, but I think speed awareness courses and relatively small fines are a waste of time. Depending on the speed being travelled, I believe losing your license for a set period would be better. Being without a car would probably hit home more for the majority

Edit – when I state sticking to the limits I don’t mean driving at exactly 30, even when it’s throwing it down, foggy etc.

Great example not only of the “within speed limit=safe” attitude that we have unfortunately bred

Given the numbers of people who speed whilst apparently still being confident in their safety (i.e. everyone) I don’t think we have bred that attitude at all.

I believe losing your license for a set period would be better. Being without a car would probably hit home more for the majority

A week for every MPH over? That’d work for me.

Sorry I accused you of whinging OP, I misread a quote on P1.

The article about Montana is written by a pro-motorist lobbying group in America. I do not wish to argue about it’s specific claims, as my knowledge of the American experience of this is inadequate to do so. However, due to it’s origins I doubt highly it provides a balanced viewpoint. The style of language used indicates to me that it’s written with politics in mind, which isn’t a good way to write objectively about a safety issue.

ROSPA do quite a good page on this which I think is likely to better reflect the situation in the UK:

http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speed/inappropriate/

funkmasterp
Speed, get fined, learn lesson, don’t speed, simples!

I’d go with:

Speed, get fined, learn lesson, still speed but keep a sharper look out next time…….

[/quote]I’d go with:

Speed, get fined, learn lesson, still speed but keep a sharper look out next time…….[/quote]

Fixed

And hopefully get fined again 😉

The favorite place for the van round here is just after the traffic lights,tucked behind a bush and about 30m before the speed limit changes from 40 to 60.Therefore catching people as they accelerate from a standstill to the national limit.

The fact is, the vast majority of accidents are due to carelessness, inattention and inappropriate speed and occur well below the posted speed limits.

The posted limit is just a guide line, and average sort of suggestion. Unfortunately it has to be pretty black and white because that’s how the law works. But in reality, it’s so many shades of grey. For example, 100mph on a lightely trafficed motorway, at 10am in the morning, in a modern car, in good visibility, is not significantly more dangerous than doing 70mph under the same conditions.

However, that same “excess” speed, at 4pm, in the dark, when it’s raining, on a busy motorway is clearly significantly more dangerous.

Unfortunately, we keep taking drivers out of the loop. Plenty of excessively low limits are put in place and for most of the time, they are too low, and drivers use their own senses, realise there is no significant danger, and hence exceed the limit. Just like the OP, who was driving through an industrial estate, presumably not through crowds of small children running around un-attended! What then happens is “breaking the speed limit” becomes normalised. Driving is 99.99999% boredom. Millions and Millons of miles are driven, at all kinds of speeds without incident. The Trick is to teach drivers to spot the un-usual, the time they need to be doing 10mph in a 30, and not even say 25mph. But that takes three things:

1) Proper Training, and investment in people
2) The realisation that driving is an individual separate task and a privilege, not a given right.
3) Political and legal pressure to actually improve matters, and not just pander to the lowest common denominator with knee jerk lowering of limits or more draconian fines (where those limits are exceeded without significant reduction in safety

Back in the day, when we had real police officers on our roads, they could use their judgement to apply a greyscale filter to the black and white law. Today, a machine records your speed and that’s it. And all that does is build and even bigger barrier to driver education and proactive safety imo.

£300 does seem unusual for a first offence.

OP, you mentioned that the office rang you so I’m assuming that you were in a. company vehicle. Could there have been a delay between the fine being issued and then tracking down who was driving which has pushed the money up ?

A week for every MPH over? That’d work for me.

Indeed…maybe a week is a bit harsh…up for debate though. I’d certainly support “micro”-bans for minor offences…mobile phone use, repeated close passing, etc. Christ knows how it would be enforced/policed though. Given the amount of uninsured drivers on the roads right now, a lot of people would probably chance getting in their cars anyway. And if an uninsured driver hits you, it’s a whole world of pain outside any physical damage to your person. It would need more sophisticated ANPR systems – but then a family’s car may be being habitually driven by two or more people at any time…so yeah, good idea, but only if enforceable and policeable. Maybe the subject for another thread. 🙂

Sorry I accused you of whinging OP, I misread a quote on P1.

nah, you were probably right, although I suppose it depends what the OP meant by this:

I´m not contesting the crime, just the sentence.

“contesting” either means, “rejecting the FPN & resolving the matter in court” (in which case: good luck to you, let us know how you get on lol) or “whinging impotently about it to anyone who’ll listen” 😆

ehrob – Member

ROSPA do quite a good page on this

They also do the most comprehensive driver training for civilians.

Look at all the STW forumites rushing to improve their driving! 😀

Or not. 😐

Oh. 🙁

ust like the OP, who was driving through an industrial estate, presumably not through crowds of small children running around un-attended!

My son’s pre-school is on the edge of an industrial area. There’s a 20 limit posted a hundred metres or so before, with a flashing sign to remind drivers. Being an industrial area, I’m sure many like you have suggested, see the sign and say “Bloody hell, it’s an industrial area, why should I do 20?”. Of course, loads of them do and go past the school at well over 30mph. Maybe they notice the school as they’re passing and think “Bloody hell, why would they put a school on the edge of an industrial area? That’s crazy thinking. I wouldn’t put my child there with all these drivers speeding around because they’re only visiting for the first time and didn’t know about the school.” People that speed have funny old perceptions IME. One never know what’s coming up despite one’s undoubted skillz.

[Oh, btw, the school was there before the industrial area grew next to it after the slum clearances.]

I’m not sure I agree with fines for motoring offences. £300 is a much harsher punishment to a chap on the dole, than for a chap on 50k. What about the yummy mummy in her Chelsea Tractor who parks where she likes in central London because she can afford the fine?

Points and temporary bans ftw.

That’s a very generous donation OP that you’ve made to our tax take which is badly in need of greater inputs at the moment. You’ve contributed in a small way to the costs of running the NHS, which, in part, is there to treat the victims of lousy drivers who, amongst other things, ignore speed limits which are set to reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by lousy drivers 🙂

You’ve contributed in a small way to the costs of running the NHS, which, in part, is there to treat the victims of lousy drivers who, amongst other things, ignore speed limits which are set to reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by lousy drivers

I realise that we live in a post-facts world, but:

Since recording began for contributory factors in 2005, failed to look properly has remained the most frequently reported contributory factor for both reported road accidents and casualties.

And practically doubled…

End of the day, it’s 5h1t driving that causes accidents, speed (or lack of) usually just impacts the seriousness of the accident.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/463043/rrcgb2014-02.pdf

Lots of people skimming this thread and missing how the new fines are calculated, given the table on page 1.

And Police are very good at estimating speed prior to crashes. There’s a whole science behind it.

Liking the idea of a ban for every Mph over the limit. Bigger fines and temporary loss of the right to drive without any mitigation might make people change their attitudes if it is effectively Policed.

My son’s pre-school is on the edge of an industrial area.

Are there no “School” warning signs displayed? I’d be on to the council if not, if I were you.

Three hours and four pages in. It can only be a speeding ticket thread!

OP fair play for not screaming injustice in your original post.

speed (or lack of) usually just impacts the seriousness of the accident.

This is very true. I had an investigator tell me that had the car that hit my brother been traveling at 28-30mph (within the posted limit) as opposed to 35mph, that in all likelihood he would have survived the impact. The speed contributed to the angle at which his head bounced off the corner of the windshield.

Lots of people skimming this thread and missing how the new fines are calculated, given the table on page 1.

Those fines are magistrates guidelines, not what you would get from a FPN.

funkmasterp
speed (or lack of) usually just impacts the seriousness of the accident.
This is very true. I had an investigator tell me that had the car that hit my brother been traveling at 28-30mph (within the posted limit) as opposed to 35mph, that in all likelihood he would have survived the impact. The speed contributed to the angle at which his head bounced off the corner of the windshield

Unfortunately that gives us two options if we want to stop any further road casualties:

1) Make the speed limit zero mph

or

2) Teach people to pay more attention, to drive with more care and skill, so that in situations that ARE risky, they drive slower, and situations that are safer, they drive faster……

Are there no “School” warning signs displayed?

Of course there are. I guess lots of people just don’t see them…what with it being an industrial area and all. Nobody’s expecting a bloody school to be there. Can’t blame them really.

49 in a 40 would ordinarily be dealt with my means of a FPN which would be £100 plus 3 points. To get a means tested fine means it went before magistrates. Some facts missing here. I’m suspecting the OP was driving in reverse at the time!

A week for every MPH over? That’d work for me.
Indeed…maybe a week is a bit harsh…up for debate though

I’d go with two days to the power of points on licence. So 3points would be 8 days, 64 at six points, 1024 at 9, and 4096 at 12, I’d probably include a mandatory custodial of 2days to points over 9 (so 1day at points, 8 at 12) for all driving offences and make those minimums, rather than someone getting reduced because their “livelihood depends on it” etc.

Can I also add I would make the custodial at the cost of the driver? Like booking in a Travel Lodge – you pay on entry to the sh*thole for a couple of days.

Even better if we re-use some suitable sites for this – old military sites, nuclear power stations and slate mines etc.

I also suggest some careful staff training to ensure fair treatment of all inmates.

Unfortunately that gives us two options if we want to stop any further road casualties:

1) Make the speed limit zero mph

or

2) Teach people to pay more attention, to drive with more care and skill, so that in situations that ARE risky, they drive slower, and situations that are safer, they drive faster……

Option two sounds good, but how do you implement it? Regular refresher and re-tests? How does one ascertain what’s a safe and what’s a dangerous situation? Things can change extremely quickly. One individuals idea of a risky situation is likely to vary from somebody else’s.

49 is excessive if you driving in the build up area … A50?

Google map shows that’s a build up area.

49 is excessive if you driving in the build up area … A50?

You’ll have to show your workings on this one. 😕