150 mph M25 8-10
Discussion
vonhosen said:
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. Even if it was multiplied by 10 it would still be so.
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.
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.
vonhosen said:
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.
Which brings us back to our favourite unending circle of debate!It purposely requires no element of danger in order to encourage compliance at all times.
Phatboy317 said:
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 issueIt 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 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.
I agree with your point regarding speed enforcement being of minor importance to the majority of road users, as when they exceed the limit it is usually by a small amount, often for many it may not even be a conscious decision, and the punishment if they are caught will be as you say and therefore not life changing in any way.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.
However if the speed involved is significantly higher then the punishments can easily be life changing, and therefore speeding is a potentially massive issue to those falling into this bracket. It's very easy to say "If you don't speed, you won't get caught" and subsequently not too difficult to apply this if you are one of the multitude of drivers who merely use a vehicle to get from A-B and barely remember what happened whilst doing it.
If we skip the group who drive fast and aren't necessarily particularly competent at it, and go to the skilled drivers towards the top of the pyramid, then the implications of speed limit enforcement are currently very oppressive, in that the punishments for conviction (most of which are likely to occur on A-road dual carriageways or motorways) are massively disproportionate to the offence committed.
I don't have a solution as logically the rules must legislate for the lowest common denominator but the punishments need a major re-jig, as 120mph on a major road is bread and butter to a competent driver in modern machinery, and combined with good hazard awareness/planning has no reason to be particularly unsafe.
cmaguire said:
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.
I agree with your point regarding speed enforcement being of minor importance to the majority of road users, as when they exceed the limit it is usually by a small amount, often for many it may not even be a conscious decision, and the punishment if they are caught will be as you say and therefore not life changing in any way.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.
However if the speed involved is significantly higher then the punishments can easily be life changing, and therefore speeding is a potentially massive issue to those falling into this bracket. It's very easy to say "If you don't speed, you won't get caught" and subsequently not too difficult to apply this if you are one of the multitude of drivers who merely use a vehicle to get from A-B and barely remember what happened whilst doing it.
If we skip the group who drive fast and aren't necessarily particularly competent at it, and go to the skilled drivers towards the top of the pyramid, then the implications of speed limit enforcement are currently very oppressive, in that the punishments for conviction (most of which are likely to occur on A-road dual carriageways or motorways) are massively disproportionate to the offence committed.
I don't have a solution as logically the rules must legislate for the lowest common denominator but the punishments need a major re-jig, as 120mph on a major road is bread and butter to a competent driver in modern machinery, and combined with good hazard awareness/planning has no reason to be particularly unsafe.
Dangerous driving is a different matter & carries a potential custodial sentence. Some degree of danger is required in evidence for it, so the law is reacting (rather than proactive) to danger caused.
In saying that I'm not claiming that it's impossible to do 120mph in 'relative' safety on our roads, just that it is way outside what our elected government has dictated the compromise to be, so it is dealt with on that basis.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 29th March 14:01
So if your speedo were broken then your level of contempt of the limit would be hard to quantify for punishment beyond what would be appropriate purely for the danger witnessed.
So is a 'safe' 140mph in a car with a suddenly broken speedo, a car that you're new to driving, less punishable than a 140mph 'safely' with a working speedo?
Hmmm
So is a 'safe' 140mph in a car with a suddenly broken speedo, a car that you're new to driving, less punishable than a 140mph 'safely' with a working speedo?
Hmmm
Mr Whippy said:
So if your speedo were broken then your level of contempt of the limit would be hard to quantify for punishment beyond what would be appropriate purely for the danger witnessed.
So is a 'safe' 140mph in a car with a suddenly broken speedo, a car that you're new to driving, less punishable than a 140mph 'safely' with a working speedo?
Hmmm
With or without a speedo, you know you are doing way way above 70mph when you are doing 140mph.So is a 'safe' 140mph in a car with a suddenly broken speedo, a car that you're new to driving, less punishable than a 140mph 'safely' with a working speedo?
Hmmm
140mph is not something you slip to.
Mr Whippy said:
So if your speedo were broken then your level of contempt of the limit would be hard to quantify for punishment beyond what would be appropriate purely for the danger witnessed.
So is a 'safe' 140mph in a car with a suddenly broken speedo, a car that you're new to driving, less punishable than a 140mph 'safely' with a working speedo?
Hmmm
For some drivers the speedometer's only use is to stop them being punished for going faster than an often arbitrary limit, after all most racing vehicles don't have speedometers.So is a 'safe' 140mph in a car with a suddenly broken speedo, a car that you're new to driving, less punishable than a 140mph 'safely' with a working speedo?
Hmmm
I'm not implying those drivers treat the road like a racetrack before that accusation arrives.
And where did "a car that you're new to driving" come from?
140mph is 140mph whether the speedometer is working or not. Whether that speed is intrinsically unsafe is a different matter.
Speed limits are a crude, generalised risk-management measure. There aren't there to have finesse and make bespoke case-by-case risk assessments. The volume of traffic makes this impossible and the compromise is a collective lowering of risk, with sanctions also falling to those whose driving and speeding offered little risk at the time.
La Liga said:
Speed limits are a crude, generalised risk-management measure. There aren't there to have finesse and make bespoke case-by-case risk assessments. The volume of traffic makes this impossible and the compromise is a collective lowering of risk, with sanctions also falling to those whose driving and speeding offered little risk at the time.
Much as I would like to drive/ride as fast as I choose, there are so few motorways that could be unrestricted in England as to make it a non-starter anyway (the profits on the M6 toll would take a turn for the better if that was derestricted, but currently cynical law enforcement targets that particularly safe road because it encourages high speed due to lack of traffic and quality surface etc). Again motorways in Scotland are ripe for speed and enforcement is high.Realistically there are so few relevant arguments against bringing our limits in line with mainland Europe (c.80mph reduced in the wet) and removing the current grey area where we already have this limit unofficially but can't be sure we'll definitely get away with it if seen.
But I'll say again that the current punishments are too severe, particularly as regards absolute speed (i.e. 100mph plus). The idea that 100mph on a motorway or dual carriageway can get you a ban or 6 points is ridiculous at this time.
vonhosen said:
With or without a speedo, you know you are doing way way above 70mph when you are doing 140mph.
140mph is not something you slip to.
I'd argue that someone used to driving a rough car like a Z4 might find a luxurious Bentley with a suddenly broken speedo hard to gauge speeds.140mph is not something you slip to.
Yes 70mph vs 140mph may be obvious, but say a sneaky 95mph vs 140mph may not be.
Just interesting that contempt is a magnifier of punishment yet contempt is so hard to quantify with a broken speedo!
Mr Whippy said:
vonhosen said:
With or without a speedo, you know you are doing way way above 70mph when you are doing 140mph.
140mph is not something you slip to.
I'd argue that someone used to driving a rough car like a Z4 might find a luxurious Bentley with a suddenly broken speedo hard to gauge speeds.140mph is not something you slip to.
Yes 70mph vs 140mph may be obvious, but say a sneaky 95mph vs 140mph may not be.
Just interesting that contempt is a magnifier of punishment yet contempt is so hard to quantify with a broken speedo!
You struggle with 95mph v 140mph?
The law caters for that by requiring you to have a functioning speedo in the first place.
vonhosen said:
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.
how does that work then ? the mere act of diving in itself is potentially dangerous .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.
wc98 said:
vonhosen said:
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.
how does that work then ? the mere act of diving in itself is potentially dangerous .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 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".
it would be interesting to see the statistics for accidents over the last ten years where vehicles involved were travelling over 100 mph ,i would suspect there were very few instances where this was the case.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".
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff