speeding fines punish criminals
Discussion
speeding fines punish criminals, rather than motorists in general. whether or not speed 'causes' accidents, it certainly makes those that do occur much worse.
surely it would be better to revise the speed limits (e.g. 90 or so on motorways, 20 in some built-up areas, more variation between these depending on the width/visibility/... of the road) and enforce speeding offences more strictly?
surely it would be better to revise the speed limits (e.g. 90 or so on motorways, 20 in some built-up areas, more variation between these depending on the width/visibility/... of the road) and enforce speeding offences more strictly?
a good idea in theory, but theyll just overdo it on the 20 zones and theyll end up too numerous and be ignored. on top of which,, i can see school zones becoming permemnent 20 limits which is obviously only really relevant for 2 hrs per day. should i have to crawl along at 20 when im coming home from work at 3am? 30 mph is quite slow enough for 99.9% of occurrences and in an ideal world more intelligent 85 percentile limits should be used. on the other hand however, sadly the slipping in driver standards has meant that roads which up till now have been utterly safe, have to be restricted as a lot of motorists now just cannot be trusted behind the wheel. perhaps then you are right, though i believe councils cannot be trusted either and well end up with 20 zones bloody everywhere. as ever, the problem is increasing driver standards rather than simply responding to the lowest common denominator. tri-annual retesting would certainly help, are there any countries in the world that need compulsory retesting? or, why not double road tax for all motorists, but halve it if the driver has completed an iam or rospa course? there just isnt the incentive from insurance companies ATM for drivers to be any better so for the majority, the current low standard is as good as thier gonna get. in repsonse to your post then, no, i personally dont think 20 zones are a very good idea. kids should be taught the green cross code and even so, 30 past a school is still dog slow. however, rather than pay for driver education, i believe the councils will just end up continually dropping limits which will be largely ignored by the majority of drivers anyway as they are set by the lowest common denominator rather than intelligent and flexible speed limit application.
Edit - oh yeah, re your motorway idea, again, a good idea in theory, and we could even have the french system so in good weather it would be 90mph but in bad it would be 70mph. however, often the idea of what is good or bad is fairly subjective and until people learn to use their indicators/check thier blindspots/use proper lane discipline, im not sure raising limits is a good idea.
>> Edited by paolow on Wednesday 14th January 13:06
Edit - oh yeah, re your motorway idea, again, a good idea in theory, and we could even have the french system so in good weather it would be 90mph but in bad it would be 70mph. however, often the idea of what is good or bad is fairly subjective and until people learn to use their indicators/check thier blindspots/use proper lane discipline, im not sure raising limits is a good idea.
>> Edited by paolow on Wednesday 14th January 13:06
jmr59 said:
whether or not speed 'causes' accidents, it certainly makes those that do occur much worse.
Come back with some evidence to support the claim and we can discuss it in huge detail. It certainly isn't sufficient to say "it's obvious".
Be sure to define exactly what sort of "speed" you're talking about.
Best regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
This is an edited repeat of my posting to another thread a few days ago:
Surely speed can turn an other wise injury-only accident into a fatal one.
The two main problems with speed are that the higher the speed the more quickly one has to assess and act upon situations (naturally there's a limit to this and that's when speed becomes a factor in its own right), and that once a situation crops up (maybe one that is not of one's own initiation) the speed factor makes the range of remedies to the bad outcome of that situation more and more limited until there are none.
It's inarguable that the range of options presented fall in inverse proportion to the speed of travel. For example, if a vehicle emerges from a side road in your path and you're travelling at very high speed, swerving is probably no longer a choice, nor is stopping before reaching the point of collision. On the other hand, at a low speed both option are available. You may technically not be the cause of the accident but you're going to be just as dead!
Please don't get me wrong here, I enjoy high speed as much as the next driver but it seems to me that in order to counter the slogan spouters you need to have actually given some thought to the pros and cons.
You cannot, in reaction to speed kills, simply shout "It Doesn't". You'll end up with some sort of Monty Python sketch like the bickering school where you pay for an argument. The only way to counter anything is by logical dis-assembly of the contention. If on the way you find out that there is an element of truth in your opponent's argument, no amount of contradicting it will change the facts.
There's no room for emotion in the argument, either. The proponents of capital punishment always trot out the "...if it was your sister or wife that he killed.." For God's sake, if we relied on that style of thought we'd still be stringing people up from trees. The fact are the facts, the trick is to recognise them.
I'll floor it along a country road with no side turnings and with a clear view over low hedges and take my chances that I won't have a blow-out or that a deer won't run out in my path. My life is what's on the line and that's my business. If it's a suburban street, however, I will as often as not be way below 30 simply because the sheer number of hazards make it dangerous, or statistically hazardous, to do otherwise. Regrettably there are very few roads where unfettered speed is absolutely safe to everyone but oneself. That's what track days are for. If you must have a slogan it should be "Accidents Kill"
Surely speed can turn an other wise injury-only accident into a fatal one.
The two main problems with speed are that the higher the speed the more quickly one has to assess and act upon situations (naturally there's a limit to this and that's when speed becomes a factor in its own right), and that once a situation crops up (maybe one that is not of one's own initiation) the speed factor makes the range of remedies to the bad outcome of that situation more and more limited until there are none.
It's inarguable that the range of options presented fall in inverse proportion to the speed of travel. For example, if a vehicle emerges from a side road in your path and you're travelling at very high speed, swerving is probably no longer a choice, nor is stopping before reaching the point of collision. On the other hand, at a low speed both option are available. You may technically not be the cause of the accident but you're going to be just as dead!
Please don't get me wrong here, I enjoy high speed as much as the next driver but it seems to me that in order to counter the slogan spouters you need to have actually given some thought to the pros and cons.
You cannot, in reaction to speed kills, simply shout "It Doesn't". You'll end up with some sort of Monty Python sketch like the bickering school where you pay for an argument. The only way to counter anything is by logical dis-assembly of the contention. If on the way you find out that there is an element of truth in your opponent's argument, no amount of contradicting it will change the facts.
There's no room for emotion in the argument, either. The proponents of capital punishment always trot out the "...if it was your sister or wife that he killed.." For God's sake, if we relied on that style of thought we'd still be stringing people up from trees. The fact are the facts, the trick is to recognise them.
I'll floor it along a country road with no side turnings and with a clear view over low hedges and take my chances that I won't have a blow-out or that a deer won't run out in my path. My life is what's on the line and that's my business. If it's a suburban street, however, I will as often as not be way below 30 simply because the sheer number of hazards make it dangerous, or statistically hazardous, to do otherwise. Regrettably there are very few roads where unfettered speed is absolutely safe to everyone but oneself. That's what track days are for. If you must have a slogan it should be "Accidents Kill"
You cannot, in reaction to speed kills, simply shout "It Doesn't".
But thats precisely what the likes of brake actually do. They shout something and then dont/cant/wont attempt to back it up with honest, open debate.
You cant talk to someone if they wont listen and they know it. Thats their strategy.
motco said:
Surely speed can turn an other wise injury-only accident into a fatal one.
The two main problems with speed are that the higher the speed the more quickly one has to assess and act upon situations (naturally there's a limit to this and that's when speed becomes a factor in its own right), and that once a situation crops up (maybe one that is not of one's own initiation) the speed factor makes the range of remedies to the bad outcome of that situation more and more limited until there are none.
This thinking is dangerously oversimplified and lies behind the whole "speed kills" thing. I note a few specific oversimplifications:
1) We have to be very very careful about what sort of speed we're talking about. Higher speed at impact obviously increases accident severity. Speed inappropriate for the conditions increases accident risk - and if the speed is highly inappropriate great danger results. (Imagine a boy racer at 80mph in a busy high street.) But neither of these sorts of speed is related to speeding or exceeding a speed limit.
2) If we're going to have vehilces going more slowly in the hope that they won't crash as hard we have to look very carefully at the side effects of the means of speed reduction. For example: Does it make drivers less attentive? Does it alter their safety priorities? Someone bored out of their mind at 50mph might fall asleep crash without braking while the same chap at 80mph might have completed his journey in safety.
3) As we saw in the "speed doesn't kill" thread, free travelling speed doesn't play a big role as a predictor of impact speed.
4) It's obviously more important to have a nation of driver who slow down when necessary rather than a nation of drivers who simply stick to the speed limit.
5) Faster road are safer than slower roads. Motorways are the safest of all. So we know it isn't "speed" by itself causing the trouble.
I could go on all day - but that's a good start. See the Safe Speed web site!
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Paul, Before you state that my thinking is oversimplified, please note accurately what I wrote. I did not refer to "speeding" I referred only to "speed". In my view there is a vast difference.
I am in general agreement with Safespeed and with what you're trying to do. What worries me is the tendency of some contributors (not you) to be reactionary and simply make unsupportable statements. These easily become fodder for the Brake types. It is imperative that all arguments are supportable with cool logic.
I am in general agreement with Safespeed and with what you're trying to do. What worries me is the tendency of some contributors (not you) to be reactionary and simply make unsupportable statements. These easily become fodder for the Brake types. It is imperative that all arguments are supportable with cool logic.
motco said:
Oh, and I like the concept of driving faster makes you more alert - can you support it? Alec Issigonis excused the uncomfortable seats in the first Minis with the reasoning that it kept the driver awake and, therefore, safer.
I can't support it directly with scientific research about driving I don't think such research has been carried out. I can support it from my own experience and the reported experience of many others.
I can also logicially suggest why and how it happens:
Imagine a long motorway drive with all vehicles limited to 20mph. How much attention would drivers give to the task of driving? This sort of extreme illustration helps to establish that there might be a curve relating workload to attention for driving.
It's obvious to me tha there's an optimum workload (and that workload increase with speed) for any activity. Too much workload and we fall behind and have failures. Too little workload and we fail to concentrate.
This whole thing has been discussed and researched with airline pilots who have sometimes been found unprepared to deal with an emergency because the flight process has become automated to the point where pilots are paying little attention to the job.
Does that help?
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Paul, It does. It would be a useful arrow in the quiver if it could be scientifically supported, though. I have driven about a million miles so far and haven't fallen asleep on the road yet. It's been close, though, and I have not yet found any surefire remedy along the lines of opening windows, warming up, cooling down, etc. Singing to myself works best but I have a limited repertoir! To hone your attention in urban areas it might be worth trying a running commentary to oneself. I often find verbalising a knotty problem makes me see an aspect I hadn't spotted. Dunno if this works with driving but it cannot do any harm.
Attention certainly does wander and it's a fact of life. Modern cars are so cocooned that the world outside seems almost to be a video display. When I drive my Westfield, however, I'm far more on the ball 'cos I feel very, very vulnerable to other road users.
Graded licences subject to basic, intermediate, and advanced tests that dictate what performance level of car one can drive may be the answer to loss of control events when inexperienced drivers get a powerful car soon after their driving test, but it won't filter out the drivers that were termed in a survey once "dissociated passive". Frequent re-tests may be a contributory step? Certianly the new tests are a step in the right direction. I do wish I believed that the agenda was solely safety but it never is as it's presented when politicians are involved.
>> Edited by motco on Wednesday 14th January 16:58
Attention certainly does wander and it's a fact of life. Modern cars are so cocooned that the world outside seems almost to be a video display. When I drive my Westfield, however, I'm far more on the ball 'cos I feel very, very vulnerable to other road users.
Graded licences subject to basic, intermediate, and advanced tests that dictate what performance level of car one can drive may be the answer to loss of control events when inexperienced drivers get a powerful car soon after their driving test, but it won't filter out the drivers that were termed in a survey once "dissociated passive". Frequent re-tests may be a contributory step? Certianly the new tests are a step in the right direction. I do wish I believed that the agenda was solely safety but it never is as it's presented when politicians are involved.
>> Edited by motco on Wednesday 14th January 16:58
safespeed said:
Oh, and I like the concept of driving faster makes you more alert - can you support it? Alec Issigonis excused the uncomfortable seats in the first Minis with the reasoning that it kept the driver awake and, therefore, safer.
I can't support it directly with scientific research about driving I don't think such research has been carried out. I can support it from my own experience and the reported experience of many others.
The research that needs to be done here is to compare the number of rear-end accidents that happen in low speed traffic queues where people's minds wander, compared to higher speed free flowing, but congested traffic.
motco said:
To hone your attention in urban areas it might be worth trying a running commentary to oneself. I often find verbalising a knotty problem makes me see an aspect I hadn't spotted. Dunno if this works with driving but it cannot do any harm.
The IAM recommend (altough no longer require for the test) that you practice a commentary. It's very informative, especially when you realise that during normal driving you did see the road sign advising of the left curve / humpback bridge / side wind, but didn't actually absorb it properly. This is especially apparent when someone asks you during an observed drive what the last order sign you drove past was.
LexSport said:
The research that needs to be done here is to compare the number of rear-end accidents that happen in low speed traffic queues where people's minds wander, compared to higher speed free flowing, but congested traffic.
I'd suggest that there are too many variables for that to give us the answer we seek. However, I'm quite sure that there are really good ways of "doing the science".
But there ARE problems.
One Safe Speed visitor suggested to me that we have entered a "post scientific era" where the results of so called scientific research are frequently predetermined by the organisations paying for the research. No longer is science the master of policy - now policy is the master of science. You need look no further than DfT funded research into speed camera effectiveness for your evidence.
Another problem is that research objectives into road safety subjects are largely set by folk who know next to nothing about driving. So even if they are going to carry out genuine independent research, they often seem to ask the wrong questions. I don't know what it is about driving that leads 99% of the population to believe that they "know enough" about the subject, but this affects most drivers as well as most scientists and most politicians.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
safespeed said:
One Safe Speed visitor suggested to me that we have entered a "post scientific era" where the results of so called scientific research are frequently predetermined by the organisations paying for the research. No longer is science the master of policy - now policy is the master of science.
Beautifully put. Go to www.numberwatch.co.uk for so much evidence of this that it will make you weep.
safespeed said:
One Safe Speed visitor suggested to me that we have entered a "post scientific era" where the results of so called scientific research are frequently predetermined by the organisations paying for the research. No longer is science the master of policy - now policy is the master of science. You need look no further than DfT funded research into speed camera effectiveness for your evidence.
Interesting idea - but I believe its worse than this.
Science is now a matter of markets or marketing, which ever you prefer - it matters not.
I could provide you with 1st hand knowlege of how a major pharmaceutical company's marketting department decided that their latest drug for the treament of a speciffic type of heart disease decided that they'd rather it treated a somewhat different type of heart disease.
Unfortunately and perhaps not surprisingly patients in these clinical trials started dying and the drug was banned by the FDA - damn shame as it was very good at what it was supposed to do but undoublty killed people if wrongly prescribed.
Ruined quite a few people's lives in hindsight and probably a few more have been lost since the drug is not available today.
Another very hot potato is the 'Myth of AIDS' - stick that into Google sometime.
Seems we're stuck in a world where people that aren't qualified to comment are making all the decisions.
What a mess. Come the revolution there's gonna be a lot of casualties.
best
Ex
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff