85th percentile?
Discussion
hertsbiker said:
If so many evil motorists are "speeding", then why don't they raise the speed limit? surely if the majority of people do it, it must be ok?
TPTB don't raise the speed limit because they have become so mesmerised by their own brainwashing ('what brains?' you may ask) that they have no concept of the practicalities of safe driving. Even if they overcame that problem they could not bear to admit they were wrong.
The fact that the majority exceed speed limits and still cause so little trouble tends to suggest that it is OK in the vast majority of cases. What we should be doing is recognising that and concentrating our efforts on those who get it wrong and cause accidents.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
hertsbiker said:
If so many evil motorists are "speeding", then why don't they raise the speed limit? surely if the majority of people do it, it must be ok?
It isn't necessarily OK to raise the speed limit. Some of our poorer drivers need the limit to guide them away from exceeding safe speeds by wild thresholds, and the cops sometimes really do need a speed limit as an easy way to prosecute those using speed dangerously.
I reckon the only answer is to enforce the speed limits with intelligence and discretion. Oh look. That's what we used to do.
safespeed said:
If so many evil motorists are "speeding", then why don't they raise the speed limit? surely if the majority of people do it, it must be ok?
It isn't necessarily OK to raise the speed limit. Some of our poorer drivers need the limit to guide them away from exceeding safe speeds by wild thresholds, and the cops sometimes really do need a speed limit as an easy way to prosecute those using speed dangerously.
It's a pity that the existence of "poorer" drivers is accepted to the extent that everyone else has to suffer.
Should we not press more for a system that does not allow the existence of such poor drivers? For a limit to be necessary because some drivers may not otherwise be able to judge how fast to drive seems incredible to me.
...and re the BIB need for speed limits so that they can prosecute dangerous driving: what about "without due care and attention"? Or is that difficult to prove without figures to "prove"?
james_j said:
It's a pity that the existence of "poorer" drivers is accepted to the extent that everyone else has to suffer.
Should we not press more for a system that does not allow the existence of such poor drivers? For a limit to be necessary because some drivers may not otherwise be able to judge how fast to drive seems incredible to me.
It's difficult. It's good that we have wide access to motor transport and it's good that we have safe roads - the safest in the world. But it's bad if we restrict road users for no safety benefit.
We have to draw a balance and we should certainly consider the manner of driving before we prosecute folk.
It's right that poor (and especially inexperienced drivers) should be given a speed limit that suits their skills. They are the folk that need the speed limit most. And we've all been inexperienced.
I don't think it's practical (at least not yet) to have different speed limits for different classes of driver. So we're left with enforcement with discretion, which is where I came in.
james_j said:
...and re the BIB need for speed limits so that they can prosecute dangerous driving: what about "without due care and attention"? Or is that difficult to prove without figures to "prove"?
"Due care" is clearly a good weapon, but it can be quite difficult to prove in court. I'd rather cops were on the street doing good than stuck in court arguing the toss. We have to try to make traffic enforcement simple and efficient. If the speed limit laws are applied to cases of dangerous use of speed we've cracked at least one of the nuts.
safespeed said:
It isn't necessarily OK to raise the speed limit. Some of our poorer drivers need the limit to guide them away from exceeding safe speeds by wild thresholds, and the cops sometimes really do need a speed limit as an easy way to prosecute those using speed dangerously.
Well in that case why not campaign for speed limits to be advisory. They would then have the same status as recommendations in the Highway Code. It is true that the present system provides an easy way for the police to prosecute those who use outrageously inappropriate speeds, even where no actual harm results from it. At the same time of course it means that anyone can very easily be penalised for speed limit excesses that (while substantial) could be accepted as safe when properly judged in the light of all the circumstances.
safespeed said:
I reckon the only answer is to enforce the speed limits with intelligence and discretion.
That's OK by me so long as there is a great deal of discretion available. I somehow fear there wouldn't be enough for some of us.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I've often thought that the principle behind any law and prosecution was "in the interests of the public" therefore it seems stupid to prosecute a driver who had caused the public no harm. Its like locking up some one who "may" commit murder. So why not hammer the motorist who causes an accident due to speed rather than one who justs speeds.
safespeed said:
It's a pity that the existence of "poorer" drivers is accepted to the extent that everyone else has to suffer.
Should we not press more for a system that does not allow the existence of such poor drivers? For a limit to be necessary because some drivers may not otherwise be able to judge how fast to drive seems incredible to me.
It's difficult. It's good that we have wide access to motor transport and it's good that we have safe roads - the safest in the world. But it's bad if we restrict road users for no safety benefit.
We have to draw a balance and we should certainly consider the manner of driving before we prosecute folk.
It's right that poor (and especially inexperienced drivers) should be given a speed limit that suits their skills. They are the folk that need the speed limit most. And we've all been inexperienced.
I don't think it's practical (at least not yet) to have different speed limits for different classes of driver.
Don't let us dismiss this idea too easily, as I think it would go a long way to overcoming our 'speeding' difficulties would it not?
I appreciate this would be a bit much for some people, but I honestly believe that abolition of the NSL would not make me drive any less safely than I already do, nor do I think I would feel at much greater risk from other drivers either.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
medicineman said:
I've often thought that the principle behind any law and prosecution was "in the interests of the public" therefore it seems stupid to prosecute a driver who had caused the public no harm. Its like locking up some one who "may" commit murder. So why not hammer the motorist who causes an accident due to speed rather than one who justs speeds.
Well I repeat what I have said previously. You get caught exceeding a speed limit, you've done no harm to anyone nor even presented much risk to anyone, but still you get done.
Have an accident and cause a considerable amount of damage to your own vehicle, vehicles belonging to others, and perhaps other non-vehicular property, and yet there is no prosecution.
Surely this crackpot system can not be sustained.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
ca092003 said:
We have to try to make traffic enforcement simple and efficient.
It is. For speeding offences they use speed cameras. We need the system to be just, upheld by officers with integrity.
Are you suggesting that speed cameras dispense "justice"? See the views of a serving magistrate here:
www.safespeed.org.uk/magistrate.html
Justice is so very much more than enforcement of the law.
TripleS said:
Well in that case why not campaign for speed limits to be advisory.
Three reasons.
1) It'd be much harder to achieve, with a great many potential supporters not being able to move that far from their present position.
2) It would make for complex arguments in court (with outright nutters claiming that their speed was safe). This in turn would lead to case law where certain speeds in certain circumstances would be considered unsafe. So we go all around the houses and end up back in roughly the same place - except the law has become vague and complex.
3) Compulsory speed limits served us very well and caused little in the way of injustice when we had intelligent coppers using them against people using speed unsafely.
TripleS said:
I reckon the only answer is to enforce the speed limits with intelligence and discretion.
That's OK by me so long as there is a great deal of discretion available. I somehow fear there wouldn't be enough for some of us.
I agree that's a danger. But the present system is failing in spades. As the failure is more and more widely recognised, I'm seriously hoping and expecting that the fundamental failure will be properly understood. When it is understood that: You can't measure safe driving in miles per hour I hope that Police will receive instructions stating that the speed limit laws should not be used against drivers unless their speed is causing a danger.
The Police routinely train their drivers in excess of 120mph on single carriageway roads, so I think they have a pretty solid understanding about the conditions.
Once the speed kills mindset is properly in decline, we should be OK.
medicineman said:
I've often thought that the principle behind any law and prosecution was "in the interests of the public" therefore it seems stupid to prosecute a driver who had caused the public no harm. Its like locking up some one who "may" commit murder. So why not hammer the motorist who causes an accident due to speed rather than one who justs speeds.
Someone said (and I can't remember who) that a law was only enforceable if 98% of the population complied voluntarily. With speed limits 98% seem to ignore them - at least some of the time.
Draconian enforcement has made virtually no difference to our "speeding" behaviour, and it never will. Sure they could quadruple the number of cameras. But we'd see riots before we see much more in the way of speed limit compliance.
safespeed said:
Compulsory speed limits served us very well and caused little in the way of injustice when we had intelligent coppers using them against people using speed unsafely.
The trafpol that frightened the life out of me at 6am on a deserted motorway, by pulling alongside me, wagging his finger then pulling away into the distance when i was doing just shy of 100Mph, did exactly that.
I doubt I'd have the same outcome today.
Sensible enforcement, from real police has my total support.
Phil
safespeed said:
When it is understood that: You can't measure safe driving in miles per hour I hope that Police will receive instructions stating that the speed limit laws should not be used against drivers unless their speed is causing a danger.
Now that would be a very useful step forward.
safespeed said:
The Police routinely train their drivers in excess of 120mph on single carriageway roads, so I think they have a pretty solid understanding about the conditions.
Yes indeed they do, which proves that it can be done, though we must also recognise that to achieve it with reasonable safety (while accepting that nothing can be 100% safe all the time) requires drivers with a good level of inherent ability plus some very specialised training. With those two conditions satisfied it appears that standard can be achieved with an extremely low incidence of shunts, for which I am always happy to give full credit.
safespeed said:
Once the speed kills mindset is properly in decline, we should be OK.
Well I hope so, but the brainwashing campaign has taken quite a hold among the masses.
Who was it that said:
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.'
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Streetcop said:
No it's not the normal speed...well not all the time...
I'm talking about crap drivers in crap cars doing the tonne near you....cos I'm not much in favour of it...I'll tell you..
This is the kind of thing best discussed over a beer or two. I have slightly off beam views aparently
Crap drivers are just sport as far as I am concerned. I always loved the dodgems as a kid.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff