1 mph over limit ? You are nicked, my son
Discussion
The report below was circulated by Idris,
Note the claim that there was a drop in fatalities even though we here know they increased by 100 on 2002 figures to the highest since the REDS came to power in 1997.
Note also confirmation of what some of what us said when guvment said they were going to treat those, "just over the limit" more leniently, when in fact they now intend to drop the ACPO guidelines and nick millions of us for 1 mph over. B******s
Telegraph Safer roads, tighter limits
By Austin Williams
(Filed: 09/10/1004)
Our roads are becoming safer.
Road Casualties Great Britain 2003, published by the National Statistics Office, shows columns of negative figures, indicating a drop in fatalities
and injuries in 2002-3.
For drivers and pedestrians, the numbers of road accident casualties are falling in line with government targets spelled out in the 2000 strategy
document, Tomorrow's Roads: Safer for Everyone. This stated that, compared with the 1994-8 average, there should be a 40 per cent reduction in people
killed or seriously injured (KSI), a 50 per cent fall in the number of those under 16 years old KSI, and a 10 per cent decline in the slight casualty rate by the year 2010.
However, before we get carried away with the success of government policy, its worth reminding ourselves that this rate of reduction matches the natural rate of decline of the previous decade, which, some might say, would have continued regardless of official campaigns.
Car traffic volumes rose by two per cent since the previous, 2002 casualty report (and over the past decade by 38 per cent), but car-related KSI
casualties have fallen by eight per cent since 2002 and by 26 per cent since the 1994-8 average.
Unfortunately, this success story is not
reflected for powered two-wheelers (PTW). Here, the traffic volume of PTWs has increased by seven per cent since 2002 (and a massive 55 per cent over
the past decade), but their fatalities have increased by 14 per cent and 48 per cent respectively.
Also of note is that the number of child cyclists between the ages of five and 11 classed as KSI has risen by nearly seven per cent since 2002, but is
still down 32 per cent on the 1994-8 average. While the figure for nought to four- year-olds shows an alarming increase of 63 per cent since 2002,
this is only an additional five children killed or seriously injured. For all other age groups, most casualty rates are significantly lower.
Finally, the data collection methods used to compile this report are expected to face radical alteration and be implemented from next year. From
now on, eye-witness and survivor testimony will be determined by a 15-point multi-choice questionnaire to identify what is called the precipitating
factor, and four contributory factors, in any given accident.
My worry is that while these comments might add a certain sociological depth to future casualty statistics, by giving credence to opinion it might
actually undermine the scientific/bureaucratic clarity that has been the stock in trade of these reports over the years.
Despite these safety improvements, new speed trap legislation will soon make driving one mph over the limit a statutory offence, adds Michael Kemp.
The move, threatening millions more motorists with fines and licence endorsement, was hidden in changes announced by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling on September 1. Mr Darling is preparing to make legal
history by setting in law that 21, 31, 41, 51 and 71mph are illegal speeds.
Dr Peter Russell, professor of road safety and director of the Driver Education Research Foundation, said: "Some police forces are going to give drivers a hammering for being just a fraction over the limit. It is very worrying that drivers will not know what tolerance, if any, is being applied. They will be for ever taking their eyes off the road.
"That will be dangerous. It is a recipe for creating more accidents. Already there are too many speed cameras questionably sited in needlessly
varying speed limits, raising suspicion that they exist only to trap drivers and raise money."
. Austin Williams is director of the Future Cities Project:
www.futurecities.org.uk.
Note the claim that there was a drop in fatalities even though we here know they increased by 100 on 2002 figures to the highest since the REDS came to power in 1997.
Note also confirmation of what some of what us said when guvment said they were going to treat those, "just over the limit" more leniently, when in fact they now intend to drop the ACPO guidelines and nick millions of us for 1 mph over. B******s
Telegraph Safer roads, tighter limits
By Austin Williams
(Filed: 09/10/1004)
Our roads are becoming safer.
Road Casualties Great Britain 2003, published by the National Statistics Office, shows columns of negative figures, indicating a drop in fatalities
and injuries in 2002-3.
For drivers and pedestrians, the numbers of road accident casualties are falling in line with government targets spelled out in the 2000 strategy
document, Tomorrow's Roads: Safer for Everyone. This stated that, compared with the 1994-8 average, there should be a 40 per cent reduction in people
killed or seriously injured (KSI), a 50 per cent fall in the number of those under 16 years old KSI, and a 10 per cent decline in the slight casualty rate by the year 2010.
However, before we get carried away with the success of government policy, its worth reminding ourselves that this rate of reduction matches the natural rate of decline of the previous decade, which, some might say, would have continued regardless of official campaigns.
Car traffic volumes rose by two per cent since the previous, 2002 casualty report (and over the past decade by 38 per cent), but car-related KSI
casualties have fallen by eight per cent since 2002 and by 26 per cent since the 1994-8 average.
Unfortunately, this success story is not
reflected for powered two-wheelers (PTW). Here, the traffic volume of PTWs has increased by seven per cent since 2002 (and a massive 55 per cent over
the past decade), but their fatalities have increased by 14 per cent and 48 per cent respectively.
Also of note is that the number of child cyclists between the ages of five and 11 classed as KSI has risen by nearly seven per cent since 2002, but is
still down 32 per cent on the 1994-8 average. While the figure for nought to four- year-olds shows an alarming increase of 63 per cent since 2002,
this is only an additional five children killed or seriously injured. For all other age groups, most casualty rates are significantly lower.
Finally, the data collection methods used to compile this report are expected to face radical alteration and be implemented from next year. From
now on, eye-witness and survivor testimony will be determined by a 15-point multi-choice questionnaire to identify what is called the precipitating
factor, and four contributory factors, in any given accident.
My worry is that while these comments might add a certain sociological depth to future casualty statistics, by giving credence to opinion it might
actually undermine the scientific/bureaucratic clarity that has been the stock in trade of these reports over the years.
Despite these safety improvements, new speed trap legislation will soon make driving one mph over the limit a statutory offence, adds Michael Kemp.
The move, threatening millions more motorists with fines and licence endorsement, was hidden in changes announced by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling on September 1. Mr Darling is preparing to make legal
history by setting in law that 21, 31, 41, 51 and 71mph are illegal speeds.
Dr Peter Russell, professor of road safety and director of the Driver Education Research Foundation, said: "Some police forces are going to give drivers a hammering for being just a fraction over the limit. It is very worrying that drivers will not know what tolerance, if any, is being applied. They will be for ever taking their eyes off the road.
"That will be dangerous. It is a recipe for creating more accidents. Already there are too many speed cameras questionably sited in needlessly
varying speed limits, raising suspicion that they exist only to trap drivers and raise money."
. Austin Williams is director of the Future Cities Project:
www.futurecities.org.uk.
21, 31, 41, etc are already illegal speeds. What's new is that they're going to be prosecuted. What a top man for realising that this will fix all known problems and with no backlash because "if you're obeying the law you've nothing to fear"! 
If only someone in authority would realise that the danger from speed is from excessive speed for the conditions and not 1mph above an arbitrary limit. This just shows the focus is on revenue -- no way could anyone say that 30mph is safe and 31mph is unsafe. It's that 31mph is illegal and therefore they can take some money off us.
If only someone in authority would realise that the danger from speed is from excessive speed for the conditions and not 1mph above an arbitrary limit. This just shows the focus is on revenue -- no way could anyone say that 30mph is safe and 31mph is unsafe. It's that 31mph is illegal and therefore they can take some money off us.
Is there any general legal principle that the punishment should fit the crime? So you can't be shot for littering, that sort of thing?
Because it seems hard to argue that 1mph over an arbitrary limit is inherently significantly more dangerous than 1mph under it, and therefor unreasonable to have such a harsh penalty as losing a quarter of your driving license (and potentially, job, house, family ...). Especially when you consider than speed limits only come in 10 mph increments so even if you accept that the criteria for choosing the 'safe' speed are correct, the speed limit would have to be set to the next lower 10 mph increment. So a 30 mph limit means they think the safe speed is less than 40 mph, etc.
Because it seems hard to argue that 1mph over an arbitrary limit is inherently significantly more dangerous than 1mph under it, and therefor unreasonable to have such a harsh penalty as losing a quarter of your driving license (and potentially, job, house, family ...). Especially when you consider than speed limits only come in 10 mph increments so even if you accept that the criteria for choosing the 'safe' speed are correct, the speed limit would have to be set to the next lower 10 mph increment. So a 30 mph limit means they think the safe speed is less than 40 mph, etc.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff