150 mph M25 8-10

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

They deal with/prosecute where sufficient evidence exists, whatever the offence.

Sufficient evidence of danger, or exceeding the limit?
It's only people who see speed == danger who fail to see the dichotomy inherent in that.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

They deal with/prosecute where sufficient evidence exists, whatever the offence.

Sufficient evidence of danger, or exceeding the limit?
It's only people who see speed = danger who fail to see the dichotomy there.

Evidence to prove an offence.
There is no requirement to prove danger with most offences. No requirement with drink/drive, no insurance, careless driving, inconsiderate driving, contravening red traffic light etc etc & yes speeding too.
Even danger offences (such as dangerous driving & dangerous position etc) there is only a need to show potential not actual danger was present.

[flemke]

vonhosen said:

flemke said:

vonhosen said:

flemke said:

LoonR1 said:

flemke said:

I would not call it a "solution", but an improvement would be to offer an advanced driving licence to those who would qualify for it. That licence would entitle the holder to make certain judgments for him(her)self, such as speed outside of built-up areas, turning left on red, and crossing a solid line.

That makes no sense based on your earlier comment. You can't say "Here's a greater increased due to others inability, so you can drive faster around them. Off you go."

That was not the point.
You objected to a good driver's driving faster on the basis that that put other drivers, including bad drivers, at increased risk.
I stated that it made no sense to object to the good driver's increasing risk when his total risk created was still less than that created by a bad driver.

I think your thesis is that one should not create unnecessary risk to others, and that driving at, say, 90 rather than 70 would be creating unnecessary risk.

My thesis is that we all create unnecessary risk to each other every day, and that the criterion for judging the tolerability of that risk should be not whether one group approves of the source of that risk, but should be rather what is the degree of that risk.

I fail to see how, when 2 people are creating the same kind of risk (driving with others on public roads), we can tolerate the one creating more risk (through bad attitude, physical or mental inability, lack of training, lack of experience, illness, etc) whilst constraining the one creating less risk. It makes no sense.

I would not constrain the poorer driver creating more risk, because I believe that the level of poor-driver risk that we currently tolerate is about right, relative to the poor driver's right to pursue his/her own interests.

At the same time, I would liberate the good driver to the extent that he/she is allowed to create some additional risk, so long as it did not exceed the risk that we already tolerate in other drivers.

The law doesn't tolerate poor or inattentive driving. That's what Sec 3 RTA is there for.

The law may not tolerate it, but as a society we do tolerate it. If we did not, it would not be so common. Poor or inattentive driving, which can take many forms, is cited as a contributory factor in RTAs vastly more frequently than exceeding the speed limit is cited.

Regardless of what the law literally tolerates or does not tolerate, the fact is that, as with most groupings of human beings, amongst drivers the quality of performance forms a pyramid. There are many more drivers at the bottom who drive at the lowest, barely legal standard than there are drivers at the top who drive at the highest standard.
That was the point - we choose to let the worst barely scrape by. By doing that the worst drivers create, and society tolerates, more absolute risk than what would be created by allowing the best to take, possibly, slightly more risk than they do now.
Although there will be a large group of drivers in the middle, there is something slightly ridiculous in allowing the worst (legal) drivers to dictate that the best drivers may not increase the overall risk, when the worst drivers are already creating the most risk of all.

By that rationale we tolerate speeding, as it is common.
As far as contributory factors in fatalities exceeding the limit/inappropriate speed are right up there are causation factors. Higher than tailgating, drink/drug driving, mobile phone use etc etc.
Where there is sufficient evidence against the worst drivers action would be taken, it can't where sufficient evidence doesn't exist.

Your contributory factor numbers are misleading.

In 2013 data (most recent published), for fatalities alone, there were 201 units of contributory factors (the average fatal accident had slightly more than 2 contributory factors).

Out of the 201 units, 15 units, or 7.5%, were "Exceeding speed limit".
Another 13 units, or 6.5%, were for "Traveling too fast for conditions".

The two categories are not interchangeable or merely to be added together.
Traveling too fast for conditions is, by definition, bad driving, unacceptable driving. It could be driving at 18 mph past a school at leaving time and hitting a child, or driving at 28 mph on black ice in a built-up area and hitting a pedestrian - we don't know, and in relation to this thread it does not matter. "Too fast for the conditions" is precisely that - bad driving.

"Exceeding speed limit", in itself, is not necessarily dangerous, as we know, whereas "Too fast for the conditions" is always dangerous.

If the "Exceeding speed limit" was indeed a contributory factor to the fatality, then by definition it was also "Too fast for the conditions". If "Exceeding speed limit" was indeed a contributory factor to an accident, it is logically impossible for "Exceeding speed limit" not to have been also "Too fast for the conditions". Therefore the number of "Too fast for the conditions" must always be equal to or greater than "Exceeding speed limit".

In any case, the two numbers should not be summed.

As for other general categories of contributory factors:

- 69 units of "Driver/Rider error or reaction (34%)
- 23 units of "Impairment or distraction" (11.5%)
- 28 units of "Behaviour or inexperience" (14%)

I contrasted exceeding the speed limit with bad driving, the latter being much worse than the former.

As "Too fast for the conditions" is obviously bad driving, the 13 units that it comprised in 2013 should be added to the other categories of units ("Driver/Rider error or reaction", et al) that were also bad driving. All together, they sum to 133 units of bad driving (not including a few other smaller ones which I have not specified here), as against the 15 units of "Exceeding speed limit".

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

They deal with/prosecute where sufficient evidence exists, whatever the offence.

Sufficient evidence of danger, or exceeding the limit?
It's only people who see speed = danger who fail to see the dichotomy there.

Evidence to prove an offence.
There is no requirement to prove danger with most offences. No requirement with drink/drive, no insurance, careless driving, inconsiderate driving, contravening red traffic light etc etc & yes speeding too.
Even danger offences (such as dangerous driving & dangerous position etc) there is only a need to show potential not actual danger was present.

By the same token, you could also say that there's potential danger in driving at night or in bad weather. And those are also easily detectable, so why don't we bring in laws against those as well?

And, btw, how is there danger in driving with no insurance?

Edited by Phatboy317 on Sunday 29th March 09:22

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

They deal with/prosecute where sufficient evidence exists, whatever the offence.

Sufficient evidence of danger, or exceeding the limit?
It's only people who see speed = danger who fail to see the dichotomy there.

Evidence to prove an offence.
There is no requirement to prove danger with most offences. No requirement with drink/drive, no insurance, careless driving, inconsiderate driving, contravening red traffic light etc etc & yes speeding too.
Even danger offences (such as dangerous driving & dangerous position etc) there is only a need to show potential not actual danger was present.

By the same token, you could also say that there's potential danger in driving at night or in bad weather. And those are also easily detectable, so why don't we bring in laws against those as well?

There's risk of course, but we aren't in a perfect world & there's a compromise to be had. That's all it's ever been, a compromise.

[vonhosen]

flemke said:

Your contributory factor numbers are misleading.

In 2013 data (most recent published), for fatalities alone, there were 201 units of contributory factors (the average fatal accident had slightly more than 2 contributory factors).

Out of the 201 units, 15 units, or 7.5%, were "Exceeding speed limit".
Another 13 units, or 6.5%, were for "Traveling too fast for conditions".

The two categories are not interchangeable or merely to be added together.
Traveling too fast for conditions is, by definition, bad driving, unacceptable driving. It could be driving at 18 mph past a school at leaving time and hitting a child, or driving at 28 mph on black ice in a built-up area and hitting a pedestrian - we don't know, and in relation to this thread it does not matter. "Too fast for the conditions" is precisely that - bad driving.

"Exceeding speed limit", in itself, is not necessarily dangerous, as we know, whereas "Too fast for the conditions" is always dangerous.

If the "Exceeding speed limit" was indeed a contributory factor to the fatality, then by definition it was also "Too fast for the conditions". If "Exceeding speed limit" was indeed a contributory factor to an accident, it is logically impossible for "Exceeding speed limit" not to have been also "Too fast for the conditions". Therefore the number of "Too fast for the conditions" must always be equal to or greater than "Exceeding speed limit".

In any case, the two numbers should not be summed.

As for other general categories of contributory factors:

- 69 units of "Driver/Rider error or reaction (34%)
- 23 units of "Impairment or distraction" (11.5%)
- 28 units of "Behaviour or inexperience" (14%)

I contrasted exceeding the speed limit with bad driving, the latter being much worse than the former.

As "Too fast for the conditions" is obviously bad driving, the 13 units that it comprised in 2013 should be added to the other categories of units ("Driver/Rider error or reaction", et al) that were also bad driving. All together, they sum to 133 units of bad driving (not including a few other smaller ones which I have not specified here), as against the 15 units of "Exceeding speed limit".

Of course than can be more than one contributory factor.
15% of fatalities exceeding the speed limit as a contributory cause.
Your general categories are misleading.
9% for alcohol.
2% for drugs.
11% failed to look properly.
9% for aggressive driving.
etc etc

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

They deal with/prosecute where sufficient evidence exists, whatever the offence.

Sufficient evidence of danger, or exceeding the limit?
It's only people who see speed = danger who fail to see the dichotomy there.

Evidence to prove an offence.
There is no requirement to prove danger with most offences. No requirement with drink/drive, no insurance, careless driving, inconsiderate driving, contravening red traffic light etc etc & yes speeding too.
Even danger offences (such as dangerous driving & dangerous position etc) there is only a need to show potential not actual danger was present.

By the same token, you could also say that there's potential danger in driving at night or in bad weather. And those are also easily detectable, so why don't we bring in laws against those as well?

There's risk of course, but we aren't in a perfect world & there's a compromise to be had. That's all it's ever been, a compromise.

A compromise that's enforced to the hilt, and defended to the hilt.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

They deal with/prosecute where sufficient evidence exists, whatever the offence.

Sufficient evidence of danger, or exceeding the limit?
It's only people who see speed = danger who fail to see the dichotomy there.

Evidence to prove an offence.
There is no requirement to prove danger with most offences. No requirement with drink/drive, no insurance, careless driving, inconsiderate driving, contravening red traffic light etc etc & yes speeding too.
Even danger offences (such as dangerous driving & dangerous position etc) there is only a need to show potential not actual danger was present.

By the same token, you could also say that there's potential danger in driving at night or in bad weather. And those are also easily detectable, so why don't we bring in laws against those as well?

There's risk of course, but we aren't in a perfect world & there's a compromise to be had. That's all it's ever been, a compromise.

A compromise that's enforced to the hilt, and defended to the hilt.

You exaggerate wildly, the laws aren't enforced to the hilt at all. The incidence/detection/prosecution ratio is extremely small indeed.
Even if it was multiplied by 10 it would still be so.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

They deal with/prosecute where sufficient evidence exists, whatever the offence.

Sufficient evidence of danger, or exceeding the limit?
It's only people who see speed = danger who fail to see the dichotomy there.

Evidence to prove an offence.
There is no requirement to prove danger with most offences. No requirement with drink/drive, no insurance, careless driving, inconsiderate driving, contravening red traffic light etc etc & yes speeding too.
Even danger offences (such as dangerous driving & dangerous position etc) there is only a need to show potential not actual danger was present.

By the same token, you could also say that there's potential danger in driving at night or in bad weather. And those are also easily detectable, so why don't we bring in laws against those as well?

There's risk of course, but we aren't in a perfect world & there's a compromise to be had. That's all it's ever been, a compromise.

A compromise that's enforced to the hilt, and defended to the hilt.

You exaggerate wildly, the laws aren't enforced to the hilt at all. The incidence/detection/prosecution ratio is extremely small indeed.
Even if it was multiplied by 10 it would still be so.

And ways are continually being sought to increase that ratio. So much for compromise.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

They deal with/prosecute where sufficient evidence exists, whatever the offence.

Sufficient evidence of danger, or exceeding the limit?
It's only people who see speed = danger who fail to see the dichotomy there.

Evidence to prove an offence.
There is no requirement to prove danger with most offences. No requirement with drink/drive, no insurance, careless driving, inconsiderate driving, contravening red traffic light etc etc & yes speeding too.
Even danger offences (such as dangerous driving & dangerous position etc) there is only a need to show potential not actual danger was present.

By the same token, you could also say that there's potential danger in driving at night or in bad weather. And those are also easily detectable, so why don't we bring in laws against those as well?

There's risk of course, but we aren't in a perfect world & there's a compromise to be had. That's all it's ever been, a compromise.

A compromise that's enforced to the hilt, and defended to the hilt.

You exaggerate wildly, the laws aren't enforced to the hilt at all. The incidence/detection/prosecution ratio is extremely small indeed.
Even if it was multiplied by 10 it would still be so.

And ways are continually being sought to increase that ratio. So much for compromise.

As I said, even a massive increase will still result in only an extremely small fraction of transgression being prosecuted.
A bit of intelligence about where/when & the chance of detection/prosecution drops considerably.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

They deal with/prosecute where sufficient evidence exists, whatever the offence.

Sufficient evidence of danger, or exceeding the limit?
It's only people who see speed = danger who fail to see the dichotomy there.

Evidence to prove an offence.
There is no requirement to prove danger with most offences. No requirement with drink/drive, no insurance, careless driving, inconsiderate driving, contravening red traffic light etc etc & yes speeding too.
Even danger offences (such as dangerous driving & dangerous position etc) there is only a need to show potential not actual danger was present.

By the same token, you could also say that there's potential danger in driving at night or in bad weather. And those are also easily detectable, so why don't we bring in laws against those as well?

There's risk of course, but we aren't in a perfect world & there's a compromise to be had. That's all it's ever been, a compromise.

A compromise that's enforced to the hilt, and defended to the hilt.

You exaggerate wildly, the laws aren't enforced to the hilt at all. The incidence/detection/prosecution ratio is extremely small indeed.
Even if it was multiplied by 10 it would still be so.

And ways are continually being sought to increase that ratio. So much for compromise.

As I said, even a massive increase will still result in only an extremely small fraction of transgression being prosecuted.
A bit of intelligence about where/when & the chance of detection/prosecution drops considerably.

...which is why we're now seeing things like HADECS 3.
And as new technology becomes available to catch more people, you'll find a way of utilising it.

If speed is genuinely such an important issue then why aren't you pushing for the adoption of ISA? The technology is here now, and it would really make speeding a thing of the past.

[k9l3k]

ging84 said:

Makes no difference to dangerous driving. If it was dangerous for anyone to drive 150 there at that time, it was dangerous for everyone, the law is very clear in that respect.
Without any other aggravating factors to make it dangerous driving, the police have either acted unreasonably by charging with DD instead of speeding or the drivers of the cars following also should have been arrested and thier cars siesed.

I agree with you mate reality is they say you should not be driving that speed as its unsafe yet 2 police cars doing the same is just as unsafe . Plenty of police crash into cars and speed. They may be trained but can be as careless on occasions also blow outs ect happen. I remember watching cops and one blew out at 120 on the motorway and one was not paying attention on the hard soulder pulling up to a scene and hit the car infront not watching what he was doing.

I am sure the ferrari can stop alot better then the police cars too although they should not of done it.

What gets me with police when your car is stolen or someone burgals you they never there or too busy to help.

They more interested in doing you for a nunber plate spaced wrong telling you its a serious offence

[flemke]

vonhosen said:

flemke said:

Your contributory factor numbers are misleading.

In 2013 data (most recent published), for fatalities alone, there were 201 units of contributory factors (the average fatal accident had slightly more than 2 contributory factors).

Out of the 201 units, 15 units, or 7.5%, were "Exceeding speed limit".
Another 13 units, or 6.5%, were for "Traveling too fast for conditions".

The two categories are not interchangeable or merely to be added together.
Traveling too fast for conditions is, by definition, bad driving, unacceptable driving. It could be driving at 18 mph past a school at leaving time and hitting a child, or driving at 28 mph on black ice in a built-up area and hitting a pedestrian - we don't know, and in relation to this thread it does not matter. "Too fast for the conditions" is precisely that - bad driving.

"Exceeding speed limit", in itself, is not necessarily dangerous, as we know, whereas "Too fast for the conditions" is always dangerous.

If the "Exceeding speed limit" was indeed a contributory factor to the fatality, then by definition it was also "Too fast for the conditions". If "Exceeding speed limit" was indeed a contributory factor to an accident, it is logically impossible for "Exceeding speed limit" not to have been also "Too fast for the conditions". Therefore the number of "Too fast for the conditions" must always be equal to or greater than "Exceeding speed limit".

In any case, the two numbers should not be summed.

As for other general categories of contributory factors:

- 69 units of "Driver/Rider error or reaction (34%)
- 23 units of "Impairment or distraction" (11.5%)
- 28 units of "Behaviour or inexperience" (14%)

I contrasted exceeding the speed limit with bad driving, the latter being much worse than the former.

As "Too fast for the conditions" is obviously bad driving, the 13 units that it comprised in 2013 should be added to the other categories of units ("Driver/Rider error or reaction", et al) that were also bad driving. All together, they sum to 133 units of bad driving (not including a few other smaller ones which I have not specified here), as against the 15 units of "Exceeding speed limit".

Of course than can be more than one contributory factor.
15% of fatalities exceeding the speed limit as a contributory cause.
Your general categories are misleading.
9% for alcohol.
2% for drugs.
11% failed to look properly.
9% for aggressive driving.
etc etc

All I did was to state some of the summary categories, von. It seemed to make more sense than to write out all the sub-categories.

Obviously, as a contributory cause of an RTA fatality, all 69 units of "Driver/Rider error or reaction" could be described as bad driving.

"Impairment or distraction" - Okay, there are 6 units of driver illness, and I'll agree that for example having a heart attack is outside the control of the driver. However, being susceptible to a distraction inside the car (6 units) or outside the car (2 units) to the extent that it has helped contribute to a fatal accident is at least part of the time going to have been the weakness of the driver failing to maintain focus, rather than the driver's being forced to focus elsewhere. That is bad driving.
Similarly, the incidence of driving whilst under influence of drugs (2 units) or alcohol (9 units) - surely those are evidence of bad driving judgment.

Then we have "Behavour or inexperience". Of the 28 units (rounded down), there are 20 units of "Driver/Rider reckless, careless, or in a hurry", and 9 units of "Aggressive driving". Obviously here, too, those are both examples of bad driving.

I did not include, because they were relatively small numbers, such sub-categories as "Disobeyed automatic traffic signal", "Disobeyed double white lines", "Disobeyed 'Give Way' or 'Stop' sign or markings, "Illegal turn or direction of travel", "Following too close", and several others, which also are examples of bad driving and which collectively comprise almost exactly the same number of incidents as does "Driver illness".

The numbers stack up, and certainly I was not trying to skew any argument by distorting statistics. I'm not sure at this point why I even bothered to compose that post, apart from pointing out that "Exceeding the speed limit" and "Too fast for the conditions" were self-evidently not reported accurately or logically.

There should be a category or sub-category of "Too fast for the conditions", and within that it could be broken down into the number exceeding and the number not exceeding the speed limit. As I wrote above, it is impossible for there to have been more examples of "Exceeding speed limit" (and that contributed to a fatal accident) than there were examples of "Too fast for the conditions". If the vehicle was exceeding the speed limit but that fact did not contribute to the accident, then the speed could not have been too fast for the conditions.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

They deal with/prosecute where sufficient evidence exists, whatever the offence.

Sufficient evidence of danger, or exceeding the limit?
It's only people who see speed = danger who fail to see the dichotomy there.

Evidence to prove an offence.
There is no requirement to prove danger with most offences. No requirement with drink/drive, no insurance, careless driving, inconsiderate driving, contravening red traffic light etc etc & yes speeding too.
Even danger offences (such as dangerous driving & dangerous position etc) there is only a need to show potential not actual danger was present.

By the same token, you could also say that there's potential danger in driving at night or in bad weather. And those are also easily detectable, so why don't we bring in laws against those as well?

There's risk of course, but we aren't in a perfect world & there's a compromise to be had. That's all it's ever been, a compromise.

A compromise that's enforced to the hilt, and defended to the hilt.

You exaggerate wildly, the laws aren't enforced to the hilt at all. The incidence/detection/prosecution ratio is extremely small indeed.
Even if it was multiplied by 10 it would still be so.

And ways are continually being sought to increase that ratio. So much for compromise.

As I said, even a massive increase will still result in only an extremely small fraction of transgression being prosecuted.
A bit of intelligence about where/when & the chance of detection/prosecution drops considerably.

...which is why we're now seeing things like HADECS 3.
And as new technology becomes available to catch more people, you'll find a way of utilising it.

If speed is genuinely such an important issue then why aren't you pushing for the adoption of ISA? The technology is here now, and it would really make speeding a thing of the past.

HADECS 3 doesn't change your odds much of being prosecuted, if you are intelligent about it.
It covers a very small portion of our road network.

Speeding isn't a massive issue, that's why it only attracts (in the vast majority of detections) either no action, SAC, or 3 points & a small fine. If it were a massive issue the penalties & effort to detect/prosecute would be far higher.

What's disproportionate is your response to what amounts to just a drop in the ocean of offences which is there just to get people to consider their speed relative to the limit.

Forget ISA, in the future you won't be doing any more than programming the destination & the vehicle will do the rest.

[vonhosen]

flemke said:

vonhosen said:

flemke said:

Your contributory factor numbers are misleading.

In 2013 data (most recent published), for fatalities alone, there were 201 units of contributory factors (the average fatal accident had slightly more than 2 contributory factors).

Out of the 201 units, 15 units, or 7.5%, were "Exceeding speed limit".
Another 13 units, or 6.5%, were for "Traveling too fast for conditions".

The two categories are not interchangeable or merely to be added together.
Traveling too fast for conditions is, by definition, bad driving, unacceptable driving. It could be driving at 18 mph past a school at leaving time and hitting a child, or driving at 28 mph on black ice in a built-up area and hitting a pedestrian - we don't know, and in relation to this thread it does not matter. "Too fast for the conditions" is precisely that - bad driving.

"Exceeding speed limit", in itself, is not necessarily dangerous, as we know, whereas "Too fast for the conditions" is always dangerous.

If the "Exceeding speed limit" was indeed a contributory factor to the fatality, then by definition it was also "Too fast for the conditions". If "Exceeding speed limit" was indeed a contributory factor to an accident, it is logically impossible for "Exceeding speed limit" not to have been also "Too fast for the conditions". Therefore the number of "Too fast for the conditions" must always be equal to or greater than "Exceeding speed limit".

In any case, the two numbers should not be summed.

As for other general categories of contributory factors:

- 69 units of "Driver/Rider error or reaction (34%)
- 23 units of "Impairment or distraction" (11.5%)
- 28 units of "Behaviour or inexperience" (14%)

I contrasted exceeding the speed limit with bad driving, the latter being much worse than the former.

As "Too fast for the conditions" is obviously bad driving, the 13 units that it comprised in 2013 should be added to the other categories of units ("Driver/Rider error or reaction", et al) that were also bad driving. All together, they sum to 133 units of bad driving (not including a few other smaller ones which I have not specified here), as against the 15 units of "Exceeding speed limit".

Of course than can be more than one contributory factor.
15% of fatalities exceeding the speed limit as a contributory cause.
Your general categories are misleading.
9% for alcohol.
2% for drugs.
11% failed to look properly.
9% for aggressive driving.
etc etc

All I did was to state some of the summary categories, von. It seemed to make more sense than to write out all the sub-categories.

Obviously, as a contributory cause of an RTA fatality, all 69 units of "Driver/Rider error or reaction" could be described as bad driving.

"Impairment or distraction" - Okay, there are 6 units of driver illness, and I'll agree that for example having a heart attack is outside the control of the driver. However, being susceptible to a distraction inside the car (6 units) or outside the car (2 units) to the extent that it has helped contribute to a fatal accident is at least part of the time going to have been the weakness of the driver failing to maintain focus, rather than the driver's being forced to focus elsewhere. That is bad driving.
Similarly, the incidence of driving whilst under influence of drugs (2 units) or alcohol (9 units) - surely those are evidence of bad driving judgment.

Then we have "Behavour or inexperience". Of the 28 units (rounded down), there are 20 units of "Driver/Rider reckless, careless, or in a hurry", and 9 units of "Aggressive driving". Obviously here, too, those are both examples of bad driving.

I did not include, because they were relatively small numbers, such sub-categories as "Disobeyed automatic traffic signal", "Disobeyed double white lines", "Disobeyed 'Give Way' or 'Stop' sign or markings, "Illegal turn or direction of travel", "Following too close", and several others, which also are examples of bad driving and which collectively comprise almost exactly the same number of incidents as does "Driver illness".

The numbers stack up, and certainly I was not trying to skew any argument by distorting statistics. I'm not sure at this point why I even bothered to compose that post, apart from pointing out that "Exceeding the speed limit" and "Too fast for the conditions" were self-evidently not reported accurately or logically.

There should be a category or sub-category of "Too fast for the conditions", and within that it could be broken down into the number exceeding and the number not exceeding the speed limit. As I wrote above, it is impossible for there to have been more examples of "Exceeding speed limit" (and that contributed to a fatal accident) than there were examples of "Too fast for the conditions". If the vehicle was exceeding the speed limit but that fact did not contribute to the accident, then the speed could not have been too fast for the conditions.

But it could still be a contributory factor in that somebody else misjudged it.

[vonhosen]

k9l3k said:

ging84 said:

Makes no difference to dangerous driving. If it was dangerous for anyone to drive 150 there at that time, it was dangerous for everyone, the law is very clear in that respect.
Without any other aggravating factors to make it dangerous driving, the police have either acted unreasonably by charging with DD instead of speeding or the drivers of the cars following also should have been arrested and thier cars siesed.

I agree with you mate reality is they say you should not be driving that speed as its unsafe yet 2 police cars doing the same is just as unsafe . Plenty of police crash into cars and speed. They may be trained but can be as careless on occasions also blow outs ect happen. I remember watching cops and one blew out at 120 on the motorway and one was not paying attention on the hard soulder pulling up to a scene and hit the car infront not watching what he was doing.

I am sure the ferrari can stop alot better then the police cars too although they should not of done it.

What gets me with police when your car is stolen or someone burgals you they never there or too busy to help.

They more interested in doing you for a nunber plate spaced wrong telling you its a serious offence

Yet the officer/staff hours spent on burglary etc is far far higher than on number plate spacing etc.

[flemke]

vonhosen said:

You exaggerate wildly, the laws aren't enforced to the hilt at all. The incidence/detection/prosecution ratio is extremely small indeed.
Even if it was multiplied by 10 it would still be so.

If you're referring here to enforcement of speed limits (it was hard to tell from the dialogue), then one must agree. A tiny fraction of instances of speeding are prosecuted.
The question is, which ones are prosecuted and which ones ought to be prosecuted. If you have been prosecuted for safely exceeding the speed limit, it is cold comfort to know that you were unlucky.

[vonhosen]

flemke said:

vonhosen said:

You exaggerate wildly, the laws aren't enforced to the hilt at all. The incidence/detection/prosecution ratio is extremely small indeed.
Even if it was multiplied by 10 it would still be so.

If you're referring here to enforcement of speed limits (it was hard to tell from the dialogue), then one must agree. A tiny fraction of instances of speeding are prosecuted.
The question is, which ones are prosecuted and which ones ought to be prosecuted. If you have been prosecuted for safely exceeding the speed limit, it is cold comfort to know that you were unlucky.

But the intention with the legislation is clearly not to make danger caused a part of the offence.
If you are only going to prosecute dangerous speeding then you have no need of the offence of speeding, because dangerous speeding is covered under Sec 2 RTA. You'd be effectively giving a green light for people to drive at what they considered a safe speed without an upper limit. The limit would be worthless.
It purposely requires no element of danger in order to encourage compliance at all times.

[flemke]

vonhosen said:

But it could still be a contributory factor in that somebody else misjudged it.

Just trying to follow what you're saying:

Are you saying that you (a driver) were speeding, another driver misjudged your speed and that other driver's misjudgment led to a traffic fatality, and therefore your speeding contributed to the accident but you yourself were not driving too fast for the conditions?

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

HADECS 3 doesn't change your odds much of being prosecuted, if you are intelligent about it.
It covers a very small portion of our road network.

Speeding isn't a massive issue, that's why it only attracts (in the vast majority of detections) either no action, SAC, or 3 points & a small fine. If it were a massive issue the penalties & effort to detect/prosecute would be far higher.

What's disproportionate is your response to what amounts to just a drop in the ocean of offences which is there just to get people to consider their speed relative to the limit.

Forget ISA, in the future you won't be doing any more than programming the destination & the vehicle will do the rest.

Well, you seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time and effort defending such a small issue