My mate was stopped in Thames Ditton this week...

[supermono]

37 or something in a (wide, straight, good vis) 30. They offered him 60 quid and points or to a look at a picture of an accident instead.

Obviously he opted to see the photograph and was "shocked" to see a car with a bit of damage.

So are they trying to suggest that the accident happened because the car was doing 37 in a 30 like my mate was? Unforch I didn't see the picture but if I was him I'd have had to try very hard to not ask the PC about why the accident happened, then ask him to explain why it's relevant to what I was doing.

It's good to get out of the points, but the ONLY thing that happened here is the copper wasted his own time and that of my mate's. My mate isn't now a reformed speeder since his behaviour wasn't dangerous then, wasn't dangerous the thousands of times he's done it before and won't be next time he trundles through there at 37mph (although now he'll be distracted looking out for a speed trap rather than hazards). He didn't look at the damaged car and think "Ooooo, I better do 30mph along here in future to avoid having a smashed up car".

Which genius thinks up these initiatives and why aren't they held to account when they achieve nothing.

SM

[vonhosen]

supermono said:

37 or something in a (wide, straight, good vis) 30. They offered him 60 quid and points or to a look at a picture of an accident instead.

Obviously he opted to see the photograph and was "shocked" to see a car with a bit of damage.

So are they trying to suggest that the accident happened because the car was doing 37 in a 30 like my mate was? Unforch I didn't see the picture but if I was him I'd have had to try very hard to not ask the PC about why the accident happened, then ask him to explain why it's relevant to what I was doing.

It's good to get out of the points, but the ONLY thing that happened here is the copper wasted his own time and that of my mate's. My mate isn't now a reformed speeder since his behaviour wasn't dangerous then, wasn't dangerous the thousands of times he's done it before and won't be next time he trundles through there at 37mph (although now he'll be distracted looking out for a speed trap rather than hazards). He didn't look at the damaged car and think "Ooooo, I better do 30mph along here in future to avoid having a smashed up car".

Which genius thinks up these initiatives and why aren't they held to account when they achieve nothing.

SM

I know.

Should've just ticketed him.

If two pictures were shown, one showing a collision at 20mph & another at 40mph would there have been any difference in the pictures ?

If there is, then speed at impact is a factor in the severity of the outcome.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 22 November 17:01

[Dino D]

Its a great idea. Don't knock. I can't believe that this level of leniancy is around. Its a good thing!

Besides, it may affect some people. i know I certainly slowed down and improved my following distances after seeing a nasty crash on the motorway.

[hugoagogo]

vonhosen said:

If two pictures were shown, one showing a collision at 20mph & another at 40mph would there have been any difference in the pictures ?

If there is, then speed at impact is a factor in the severity of the outcome.

and in your specialist subject for this evening, the bleeding obvious, you scored 1 and no passes

if you were shown a picture of a car that drove into a wall at 20 without braking, and then one that was doing 40, braked, and hit a wall at 20, would you know which was which?

[vonhosen]

hugoagogo said:

vonhosen said:

If two pictures were shown, one showing a collision at 20mph & another at 40mph would there have been any difference in the pictures ?

If there is, then speed at impact is a factor in the severity of the outcome.

and in your specialist subject for this evening, the bleeding obvious, you scored 1 and no passes

if you were shown a picture of a car that drove into a wall at 20 without braking, and then one that was doing 40, braked, and hit a wall at 20, would you know which was which?

I'd also know that the one doing 20 if it had braked could stop in a shorter distance than the one doing 40 & may therefore have avoided the wall altogether.

[SN]

vonhosen said:

supermono said:

37 or something in a (wide, straight, good vis) 30. They offered him 60 quid and points or to a look at a picture of an accident instead.

Obviously he opted to see the photograph and was "shocked" to see a car with a bit of damage.

So are they trying to suggest that the accident happened because the car was doing 37 in a 30 like my mate was? Unforch I didn't see the picture but if I was him I'd have had to try very hard to not ask the PC about why the accident happened, then ask him to explain why it's relevant to what I was doing.

It's good to get out of the points, but the ONLY thing that happened here is the copper wasted his own time and that of my mate's. My mate isn't now a reformed speeder since his behaviour wasn't dangerous then, wasn't dangerous the thousands of times he's done it before and won't be next time he trundles through there at 37mph (although now he'll be distracted looking out for a speed trap rather than hazards). He didn't look at the damaged car and think "Ooooo, I better do 30mph along here in future to avoid having a smashed up car".

Which genius thinks up these initiatives and why aren't they held to account when they achieve nothing.

SM

I know.

Should've just ticketed him.

If two pictures were shown, one showing a collision at 20mph & another at 40mph would there have been any difference in the pictures ?

If there is, then speed at impact is a factor in the severity of the outcome.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 22 November 17:01

Okay then based on this logic, lets do 10mph. No one will die, no one will get anywhere.

[john57]

When cameras are set to give you a ticket at 37 in a 30 I would be more than happy to look at a picture or two to save £60 and three points .... whether it works or not !

[vonhosen]

SN said:

vonhosen said:

supermono said:

37 or something in a (wide, straight, good vis) 30. They offered him 60 quid and points or to a look at a picture of an accident instead.

Obviously he opted to see the photograph and was "shocked" to see a car with a bit of damage.

So are they trying to suggest that the accident happened because the car was doing 37 in a 30 like my mate was? Unforch I didn't see the picture but if I was him I'd have had to try very hard to not ask the PC about why the accident happened, then ask him to explain why it's relevant to what I was doing.

It's good to get out of the points, but the ONLY thing that happened here is the copper wasted his own time and that of my mate's. My mate isn't now a reformed speeder since his behaviour wasn't dangerous then, wasn't dangerous the thousands of times he's done it before and won't be next time he trundles through there at 37mph (although now he'll be distracted looking out for a speed trap rather than hazards). He didn't look at the damaged car and think "Ooooo, I better do 30mph along here in future to avoid having a smashed up car".

Which genius thinks up these initiatives and why aren't they held to account when they achieve nothing.

SM

I know.

Should've just ticketed him.

If two pictures were shown, one showing a collision at 20mph & another at 40mph would there have been any difference in the pictures ?

If there is, then speed at impact is a factor in the severity of the outcome.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 22 November 17:01

Okay then based on this logic, lets do 10mph. No one will die, no one will get anywhere.

Wrong

People can & do die in collisions under 10mph.

If you want no motor vehicle fatality collisions, you have to have no motor vehicles.

That is plainly not an option given our reliance on the motor vehicle, so we then have to attempt to minimise the numbers of them & the severity of the outcome, but we have to accept there will be some.

The greater a vehicles speed, the less time there is for a driver to see, accurately assess & safely deal with hazards. The greater distance he will take to stop. The more energy there is if he can't avoid that hazard.

What we realisticly need is a sensible compromise, which I think on the whole we have. It's not perfect, but nothing is.

[andy zarse]

vonhosen said:

SN said:

vonhosen said:

supermono said:

37 or something in a (wide, straight, good vis) 30. They offered him 60 quid and points or to a look at a picture of an accident instead.

Obviously he opted to see the photograph and was "shocked" to see a car with a bit of damage.

So are they trying to suggest that the accident happened because the car was doing 37 in a 30 like my mate was? Unforch I didn't see the picture but if I was him I'd have had to try very hard to not ask the PC about why the accident happened, then ask him to explain why it's relevant to what I was doing.

It's good to get out of the points, but the ONLY thing that happened here is the copper wasted his own time and that of my mate's. My mate isn't now a reformed speeder since his behaviour wasn't dangerous then, wasn't dangerous the thousands of times he's done it before and won't be next time he trundles through there at 37mph (although now he'll be distracted looking out for a speed trap rather than hazards). He didn't look at the damaged car and think "Ooooo, I better do 30mph along here in future to avoid having a smashed up car".

Which genius thinks up these initiatives and why aren't they held to account when they achieve nothing.

SM

I know.

Should've just ticketed him.

If two pictures were shown, one showing a collision at 20mph & another at 40mph would there have been any difference in the pictures ?

If there is, then speed at impact is a factor in the severity of the outcome.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 22 November 17:01

Okay then based on this logic, lets do 10mph. No one will die, no one will get anywhere.

The greater a vehicles speed, the less time there is for a driver to see, accurately assess & safely deal with hazards. The greater distance he will take to stop. The more energy there is if he can't avoid that hazard.

What we realisticly need is a sensible compromise, which I think on the whole we have. It's not perfect, but nothing is.

I would change this statement slightly to say - "The less a driver pays attention, the less time there is for a driver to see, accurately assess & safely deal with hazards. The greater distance he will take to stop. The more energy there is if he can't avoid that hazard."

[hugoagogo]

vonhosen said:

hugoagogo said:

vonhosen said:

If two pictures were shown, one showing a collision at 20mph & another at 40mph would there have been any difference in the pictures ?

If there is, then speed at impact is a factor in the severity of the outcome.

and in your specialist subject for this evening, the bleeding obvious, you scored 1 and no passes

if you were shown a picture of a car that drove into a wall at 20 without braking, and then one that was doing 40, braked, and hit a wall at 20, would you know which was which?

I'd also know that the one doing 20 if it had braked could stop in a shorter distance than the one doing 40 & may therefore have avoided the wall altogether.

and if my granny had balls she'd be my grandad

[cross-eyed-twit]

whats wrong with trying to educate the plonker? I see nothing wrong with the copper doing this. It might simply have been a dumb oversight and plod were being lenient. Christ I would be pleased as punch to not have been ticketed... I would also have thought twice about the 30 limit which I do make every effort to keep to.

[combemarshal]

Lets say the limit is 30, the limit is 30 because it's the law, you brake the law you pay the price, you chose to break the law so don't moan when you get caught!!
A lot of speed limits are there to help traffic flow too, if everyone drives down the Motorway at 100 then they'd all get to the exit roads quicker thus clogging them up, I was going from Stroud to London on the M4 when they started the Camera vans on the bridges, So I decided to be good for once and not go over 70, The Journey took me that week about 20 mins less on the way for some reason (and no, It wasn't half term!)
Our roads can't cope with higher speeds, I belive most cars and drivers can, but the roads can't!

[jasandjules]

One of my suggestions to Essex Plod was to show Bikers who are caught doing 100mph plus, photos of accidents of bikers.. The ones where the head is 50ft away etc...

They said that would be mean...

[puggit]

vonhosen said:

hugoagogo said:

vonhosen said:

If two pictures were shown, one showing a collision at 20mph & another at 40mph would there have been any difference in the pictures ?

If there is, then speed at impact is a factor in the severity of the outcome.

and in your specialist subject for this evening, the bleeding obvious, you scored 1 and no passes

if you were shown a picture of a car that drove into a wall at 20 without braking, and then one that was doing 40, braked, and hit a wall at 20, would you know which was which?

I'd also know that the one doing 20 if it had braked could stop in a shorter distance than the one doing 40 & may therefore have avoided the wall altogether.

Or the one doing 20 could be too busy looking at his speedo and didn't see the wall at all

[vonhosen]

puggit said:

vonhosen said:

hugoagogo said:

vonhosen said:

If two pictures were shown, one showing a collision at 20mph & another at 40mph would there have been any difference in the pictures ?

If there is, then speed at impact is a factor in the severity of the outcome.

and in your specialist subject for this evening, the bleeding obvious, you scored 1 and no passes

if you were shown a picture of a car that drove into a wall at 20 without braking, and then one that was doing 40, braked, and hit a wall at 20, would you know which was which?

I'd also know that the one doing 20 if it had braked could stop in a shorter distance than the one doing 40 & may therefore have avoided the wall altogether.

Or the one doing 20 could be too busy looking at his speedo and didn't see the wall at all

And the one doing 40 might be changing his CD
Poor driving is poor driving at any speed.
But a poor driver doing 20 causes less damage than a poor driver doing 40 & also gives others more time to avoid him.
Speed just exaggerates drivers other weaknesses, gives them less time to cover for them & results in greater adversity in the outcome where they can't cover for them.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 22 November 22:43

[hugoagogo]

vonhosen said:

Poor driving is poor driving at any speed.

but which sort of poor driving gets you 60 quid fine and 3 points from a camera? driving at 37 paying attention to the road or changing CD whilst drunk at the wheel of a stolen bus full of poor orphans, driving into a wall?

[gridgway]

seeing a pic and a Bib taking the time to deal with you with any combination of information/reason/bollocking is far, far, far better than a NIP in the post from a speedcam.

Graham

[vonhosen]

hugoagogo said:

vonhosen said:

Poor driving is poor driving at any speed.

but which sort of poor driving gets you 60 quid fine and 3 points from a camera? driving at 37 paying attention to the road or changing CD whilst drunk at the wheel of a stolen bus full of poor orphans, driving into a wall?

We know that not being in full control of the vehicle leads to prosecutions (ie the lady caught on camera doing her make up while driving along) where detected.

We know that drink drivers get prosecuted where detected.

We know that speeders get prosecuted where detected.

We know that those who steal cars get prosecuted where detected.

It's safe to say that if there is sufficient evidence of an offence you run the risk of prosecution no matter what the offence is.

[andmole]

vonhosen said:

hugoagogo said:

vonhosen said:

Poor driving is poor driving at any speed.

but which sort of poor driving gets you 60 quid fine and 3 points from a camera? driving at 37 paying attention to the road or changing CD whilst drunk at the wheel of a stolen bus full of poor orphans, driving into a wall?

We know that not being in full control of the vehicle leads to prosecutions (ie the lady caught on camera doing her make up while driving along) where detected.

We know that drink drivers get prosecuted where detected.

We know that speeders get prosecuted where detected.

We know that those who steal cars get prosecuted where detected.

It's safe to say that if there is sufficient evidence of an offence you run the risk of prosecution no matter what the offence is.

Key phrase in all of this "where detected"

because of the stupid way in which road policing is done these days there are less traffic police to detect the more serious crimes.

[fluffnik]

vonhosen said:

Should've just ticketed him.

Should have just done nothing, not even exist.

Doctors find this works in most cases.