Speeding - Sometimes safe but not according to Plod....
Discussion
So I received my very first speeding ticket today. It was just south of Glencoe, on an arrow straight section of a road I know very well. I was caught by a hidden car with a mobile camera (sneaky b
ds...) I'm not grumbling about the fact that I got a ticket, cards on the table I was speeding (80 in a 60 if you want to know), I broke the law and I'll accept the consequences like a man. I was not driving dangerously or aggressively, just cruising at 80 along a straight, open road. But the limit is 60 and I was breaking it. Still, bloody sneaky hidden-behind-a-bush policemen....
It got me thinking though. The reason speed limits exist is because that's the maximum speed deemed to be safe on that given section of road. Any faster than that, and you're deemed to be a danger, in the eyes of the law. However using flat speed limits as a safety measure obviously ONLY takes into account how fast a car is going. It doesn't take into account many other factors that can influence how safe a given situation is, like road conditions, the condition of the car or indeed who the driver is. So in certain situations, a driver who is obeying the speed limit could still be a danger but not receive a ticket, and a driver who isn't obeying the speed limit but is actually perfectly safe will be punished.
Let me give an extreme example. Two scenarios of two drivers, both driving along a 60mph limit road:
Car: beaten up old Vauxhall Nova
Driver: 85 year old man
Tyres: budget wellies
Conditions: nighttime and raining
Nature of road: fairly twisty
Does he know the road?: not at all
Speed driving: 60mph
Car: Nissan GT-R
Driver: Sebastien Loeb
Tyres: Bridgestone Potenza
Conditions: daytime and bone dry
Nature of road: open and flowing
Does he know the road?: very well
Speed driving: 70mph
Which of these two drivers will be given a ticket, designed to punish "dangerous" driving? Exactly. Loeb will be given a ticket for his trouble, despite being an incredibly capable driver in an incredibly capable car, whereas the OAP in the deathtrap will receive no such thing.
Obviously a penalty system that took into account all the above factors would be horribly convoluted and littered with mitigating circumstances, so such a thing will never be implemented. And I can't help but feel that the current system, although occasionally perfectly fair, also punishes a large number of drivers who, looked at objectively and logically, were no danger to themselves or others.
ds...) I'm not grumbling about the fact that I got a ticket, cards on the table I was speeding (80 in a 60 if you want to know), I broke the law and I'll accept the consequences like a man. I was not driving dangerously or aggressively, just cruising at 80 along a straight, open road. But the limit is 60 and I was breaking it. Still, bloody sneaky hidden-behind-a-bush policemen....It got me thinking though. The reason speed limits exist is because that's the maximum speed deemed to be safe on that given section of road. Any faster than that, and you're deemed to be a danger, in the eyes of the law. However using flat speed limits as a safety measure obviously ONLY takes into account how fast a car is going. It doesn't take into account many other factors that can influence how safe a given situation is, like road conditions, the condition of the car or indeed who the driver is. So in certain situations, a driver who is obeying the speed limit could still be a danger but not receive a ticket, and a driver who isn't obeying the speed limit but is actually perfectly safe will be punished.
Let me give an extreme example. Two scenarios of two drivers, both driving along a 60mph limit road:
Car: beaten up old Vauxhall Nova
Driver: 85 year old man
Tyres: budget wellies
Conditions: nighttime and raining
Nature of road: fairly twisty
Does he know the road?: not at all
Speed driving: 60mph
Car: Nissan GT-R
Driver: Sebastien Loeb
Tyres: Bridgestone Potenza
Conditions: daytime and bone dry
Nature of road: open and flowing
Does he know the road?: very well
Speed driving: 70mph
Which of these two drivers will be given a ticket, designed to punish "dangerous" driving? Exactly. Loeb will be given a ticket for his trouble, despite being an incredibly capable driver in an incredibly capable car, whereas the OAP in the deathtrap will receive no such thing.
Obviously a penalty system that took into account all the above factors would be horribly convoluted and littered with mitigating circumstances, so such a thing will never be implemented. And I can't help but feel that the current system, although occasionally perfectly fair, also punishes a large number of drivers who, looked at objectively and logically, were no danger to themselves or others.
Edited by thatguy11 on Saturday 16th August 21:37
Edited by thatguy11 on Saturday 16th August 21:38
Mk3Spitfire said:
voyds9 said:
Speeding - Sometimes safe but not according to Plod....
Unless of course it is the police speeding in a new car learning its abilities. Note that excuse is only believable for a policeman.
Still bringing this one up eh....Unless of course it is the police speeding in a new car learning its abilities. Note that excuse is only believable for a policeman.
I agree with what you say entirely but the speed limit is a threshold and officers sent out to enforce it with a speed gun will record all those who they see to be above it. If people are seen to be dangerous in other ways such as having unroadworthy vehicles, using their mobile phones while driving or wandering all over the road for some reason there are other offenses such as Dangerous Driving or Driving Without Due Care and Attention that they can be prosecuted for. Of course, as long as traffic enforcement is more about cameras and people hiding at the roadside with speed guns rather than officers being out there seeing the full spectrum of issues and using their judgment as to what they should address and how it will always be skewed towards prosecutions for speeding while people get away with everything else. It doesn't help that some vocal members of the public are supportive of measures designed solely to prosecute people speeding without ever really considering or being aware of other dangers.
How about comparing a broader range of issues that are deemed to be a problem for society and how they're dealt with.
A friend of mine has had to have his cheekbone wired up after being randomly punched by a drunk guy in a bar who had previous convictions for similar offences but was out and about to do it again. I think binge drinking is at least equal to speeding, if not worse, in terms of being a danger to society and antisocial as well as being a burden on the police service and the NHS. Right now on a Saturday night towns and cities will be full of drunks fighting and vomiting in the street and falling over and you wouldn't want to have an accident or be taken ill and end up in A&E. Yet the government shy away from minimum alcohol prices and restricted opening hours for bars and clubs.
How about comparing a broader range of issues that are deemed to be a problem for society and how they're dealt with.
A friend of mine has had to have his cheekbone wired up after being randomly punched by a drunk guy in a bar who had previous convictions for similar offences but was out and about to do it again. I think binge drinking is at least equal to speeding, if not worse, in terms of being a danger to society and antisocial as well as being a burden on the police service and the NHS. Right now on a Saturday night towns and cities will be full of drunks fighting and vomiting in the street and falling over and you wouldn't want to have an accident or be taken ill and end up in A&E. Yet the government shy away from minimum alcohol prices and restricted opening hours for bars and clubs.
Jon1967x said:
The arrow straight piece of road but one that's still possible to have a hidden camera? Replace camera with 4 year old child playing with a ball that bounces into the road.
South of Glencoe. Likely to be open countryside. Four-year-old child playing with ball highly unlikely.It's a fallacious argument. The speed limit is considered the maximum for perfect conditions so could well be considered too fast if they weren't.
It's bloody annoying getting done but then the obvious point to make is that if you've got caught your observation and anticipation weren't good enough.
It's bloody annoying getting done but then the obvious point to make is that if you've got caught your observation and anticipation weren't good enough.
thatguy11 said:
It was just south of Glencoe, on an arrow straight section of a road I know very well. I was caught by a hidden car with a mobile camera (sneaky bds...)
Which direction were you going in? Was it northbound on this bit? If so they were probably lurking here by the trees at the far end.ds...)It's the only place with any realistic chance of concealment. I'm just a Sassenach fairy who only uses that road a couple of times a year!
If I'm aware where they are likely to hide, someone who knows the A82 well should be doubly vigilant, no?
The entire section from the top of the climb to Rannoch Moor to the entrance to Glencoe itself has excellent visibility and just three side turnings. Glencoe Mountain Ski Centre, the Kings House Hotel, and the road down Glen Etive. One of the few two lane roads where, when it's dry and clear, 80 is hardly ever going to make the world fall off its axis.
Unfortunately discretion isn't likely to be given for over 30% above the NSL however inviting the road may be.
Escort3500 said:
South of Glencoe. Likely to be open countryside. Four-year-old child playing with ball highly unlikely.
Walkers with dogs, sheep, wildlife and brightly painted police cars, however...Speed limits don't provide a line in the sand between dangerous and safe and nor do they purport to.
Escort3500 said:
Jon1967x said:
The arrow straight piece of road but one that's still possible to have a hidden camera? Replace camera with 4 year old child playing with a ball that bounces into the road.
South of Glencoe. Likely to be open countryside. Four-year-old child playing with ball highly unlikely.Edited by Jon1967x on Sunday 17th August 07:03
Jon1967x said:
The point was if the road is that clear and open why didn't you see the camera? Doesn't have to be a child, could be a sheep. Do you not see the flaw in declaring the road was one thing (safe to drive fast) only to be caught out because it wasn't? Many other posters seem to agree with this
On a straight stretch of road, a camera can "see" you at quite a distance before you see it - far further than you would require to slow down in the event of seeing a child or animal at the side of the road, for instance.Edited by Jon1967x on Sunday 17th August 07:03
I don't believe that a van parked off the road in a concealed fashion a half a mile ahead constitutes any sort of immediate safety hazard.
LEJOG riders sometimes use the A82, if you Google the road you see a lot of riders who say they are terrified by the behaviour of drivers along that stretch. Drivers like the OP. Remember, there does not have to be a fatality on a road for speeding drivers to be intimidatory, aggressive and anti-social (although there have been four fatalities on the road in the last 12 months.
Genuine question, why not leave earlier, leave more time for your journey, that way you won't break the law, won't scare other road users and won't get a fine? Other people manage it, why not you?
Genuine question, why not leave earlier, leave more time for your journey, that way you won't break the law, won't scare other road users and won't get a fine? Other people manage it, why not you?
OTBC said:
LEJOG riders sometimes use the A82, if you Google the road you see a lot of riders who say they are terrified by the behaviour of drivers along that stretch. Drivers like the OP.
Why do you assume that there were a lot of riders, or indeed any riders or other traffic at all, on that stretch at the time the OP was caught?And why do you assume that the OP would not have slowed down had there been?
I consider myself to be a more capable driver with quicker reactions than a 90 year old, but it just means that I plough into the child running out in the road and the old person stops in time. Your argument is nonsense. A Nissan GTR might be infinitely safer on a country road, (better handling, grip to spare, big brakes) than a clapped out old Nova with a sponge for a brake pedal, but you're saying that speed limits should take into account what car you're driving and what skill level you are?
I know for example if I'm driving a GTR at 38 mph in a 30 that I could stop on a sixpence, whereas an old Nova travelling at 30 mph will take longer to stop. But the speed limit is 30. Doesn't take a genius to work out what speed you should be doing, irrespective of what car you have or if you're the best driver who ever lived. Stupid, stupid argument OP.
I know for example if I'm driving a GTR at 38 mph in a 30 that I could stop on a sixpence, whereas an old Nova travelling at 30 mph will take longer to stop. But the speed limit is 30. Doesn't take a genius to work out what speed you should be doing, irrespective of what car you have or if you're the best driver who ever lived. Stupid, stupid argument OP.
Phatboy317 said:
OTBC said:
LEJOG riders sometimes use the A82, if you Google the road you see a lot of riders who say they are terrified by the behaviour of drivers along that stretch. Drivers like the OP.
Why do you assume that there were a lot of riders, or indeed any riders or other traffic at all, on that stretch at the time the OP was caught?And why do you assume that the OP would not have slowed down had there been?
And if someone is 'terrified' by a driver doing 80, how are they going to cope with a driver doing 59? Or do they carry radar guns to inform them which vehicles to be terrified by?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff