I know we all joke, but how long will it be before...
Discussion
...somebody at fault in respect of an RTA does actually say 'Sorry officer/your honour, I was so worried about not speeding, I was looking at my speedo in the split second that things unfolded'
...not going to help their case as by admission they weren't looking where they were going, but I would be interested to hear any anecdotes, Police or Judge's reactions to the above statement, if anyone has had it said to them..?
...not going to help their case as by admission they weren't looking where they were going, but I would be interested to hear any anecdotes, Police or Judge's reactions to the above statement, if anyone has had it said to them..?
From the face of it, it appears as though this chap waas genuinely driving like a pratt and the tragedy was only a matter of time, but he made the magic comment:
www.wigantoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=66&ArticleID=780874
article said:
He also told a police officer that he didn't see Rebecca as he was looking at a speed camera.
www.wigantoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=66&ArticleID=780874
MrsMiggins said:
There was also a case where an elderly pedestrian was run over by a driver who admitted he was checking his speedo at the time as there was a camera nearby.
There's also cases where a good driver was using good observation, anticipation and planning to see what was going on. By knowing the car, by using his experience, and by being able to 'sense' the car, he was able to accurately judge his speed. He was able to do this with the assistance of many many different inputs, only one of which was a quick glance at the speedo. He was not solely dependent on it, as that would actually make him a shite driver! He glanced at it when it was safe to do so (based on good all round observation and awareness) and found that driving this way meant he needed the speedo for confirmation only. Being an intelligent driver, he did not try and suggest that looking at a speedo causes accidents per se, rather he accepted his responsibility to drive safely, with awareness of what was going on around him. This made him an 'advanced' driver. Not a numpty.
big Fat F'er said:
There was also a case where an elderly pedestrian was run over by a driver who admitted he was checking his speedo at the time as there was a camera nearby.
There's also cases where a good driver was using good observation, anticipation and planning to see what was going on. By knowing the car, by using his experience, and by being able to 'sense' the car, he was able to accurately judge his speed. He was able to do this with the assistance of many many different inputs, only one of which was a quick glance at the speedo. He was not solely dependent on it, as that would actually make him a shite driver! He glanced at it when it was safe to do so (based on good all round observation and awareness) and found that driving this way meant he needed the speedo for confirmation only. Being an intelligent driver, he did not try and suggest that looking at a speedo causes accidents per se, rather he accepted his responsibility to drive safely, with awareness of what was going on around him. This made him an 'advanced' driver. Not a numpty.
I hear what you're saying, BFF, but I reckon there's only a very tiny minority that could accurately and repeatably guage an exact speed without checking the speedo.
In times past, getting the answer "roughly" correct was good enough, as there was no penalty for being 1 or 2 mph out in your calculation. Unfortunately, the current obsession with numerical speed as the be-all and end-all of road safety means that "roughly correct" is no longer good enough if you wish to keep your licence.
Therefore, I'd suggest that many (most?) otherwise safe and "advanced" drivers these days will risk a glance at the speedo as soon as a camera or suspicious van is spotted.
pdV6 said:
[In times past, getting the answer "roughly" correct was good enough, as there was no penalty for being 1 or 2 mph out in your calculation. Unfortunately, the current obsession with numerical speed as the be-all and end-all of road safety means that "roughly correct" is no longer good enough if you wish to keep your licence.
Therefore, I'd suggest that many (most?) otherwise safe and "advanced" drivers these days will risk a glance at the speedo as soon as a camera or suspicious van is spotted.
Yep - I can drive at 'about' 60 quite easily, but whenever a GATSO hoves into view, I always double-check, usually triple-check, and usually knock my speed back 2-3mph. Whenever a white van appears in a suspicious place in sight I brake immediately, regardless of what speed I was doing - I am not taking ANY chances with an LTI.
Are they safe things to do? No, absolutely not. Especially the second.
Are they now necessary things to do to preserve my (currently clean) license? Yes, absolutely.
Am I pissed off at the whole situation? Most assuredly yes, I now hold the government, the SCPs, and any associated officers in my fullest contempt for such an abrogation of their duties as public servants.
The reason a quick glance should be used to know your speed and not how good your observation is in my opinion is that there are too many variables involved in guessing your speed such as the vidth of the road the gap between the lines and the diffrent refrancce points you use to judge ypur speed which are passing you on either side, for example cones which are places close together in a contraflow make you feel your going a diffrent speed then what you are and the same with other objects
pdV6 said:
...as there was no penalty for being 1 or 2 mph out in your calculation.
And there still isn't. How many people have been prosecuted for exceeding the limit by 1 MPH?
For the most extreme view on this look at;
www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html
A prime example of someone making a decision about something then manufacturing the evidence to 'prove' that statement to be true, no matter how contrived.
Give me a blank sheet of paper with 'The moon is square' written at the bottom and no matter how long I was given, you'd get a blank sheet of paper back.
Give Safespeed the same sheet of paper and not only would you get pages and pages of conclusive proof that the moon is square based on thousands of hours of research, he'd then publish a press release on 'planetheads.com'. Everyone on the forums there would rave about how true it all was and how Tony 'Bliar' is just conning us all into thinking the moon is round. Hmmph.
(Note the use of apostrophes for 'special sense' terms)
Only an utter numpty would ever use the 'I was looking at my speedo' excuse.
I'm not saying you shouldn't glance at the speedo. I'm saying it is only one input, one of many many inputs. I'm also saying that if you drive 'well' you should know your speed well before you are anywhere near a camera, or a van, which you will have spotted from a goodly distance away.
I dont buy the argument from the twonks that say 'glancing at the speedo can cause an accident, that is why we shouldn't have cameras'. If you don't want cameras, that's fine, it can be debated, but don't weaken the argument by using the speedo rubbish.
I've even known folk justify changing a CD, or a tape, or setting the satnav, but saying glancing at a speedo is dangerous. Yeah right.
spnracing - absolutely. Your last comment says it all. Couldn't agree more.
>> Edited by big Fat F'er on Tuesday 14th February 15:25
I dont buy the argument from the twonks that say 'glancing at the speedo can cause an accident, that is why we shouldn't have cameras'. If you don't want cameras, that's fine, it can be debated, but don't weaken the argument by using the speedo rubbish.
I've even known folk justify changing a CD, or a tape, or setting the satnav, but saying glancing at a speedo is dangerous. Yeah right.
spnracing - absolutely. Your last comment says it all. Couldn't agree more.
>> Edited by big Fat F'er on Tuesday 14th February 15:25
I would normally agree that 1 or 2mph won't make a difference. But:-
They tried to prosecute a coach for going faster than it's limiter would physically allow!
If they can try it on with clearly erroneous readings such as this, who wants to take a chance that the GATSO/LTI/... is calibrated perfectly?
They tried to prosecute a coach for going faster than it's limiter would physically allow!
If they can try it on with clearly erroneous readings such as this, who wants to take a chance that the GATSO/LTI/... is calibrated perfectly?
If someone checks the speedo due to an approaching scamera, at the same time as a kid runs out randomly into their path, are spnracing & Big F saying the scamera and the need to look at the speedo are not relevant factors in any subsequent accident?
>> Edited by trev r on Tuesday 14th February 17:11
>> Edited by trev r on Tuesday 14th February 17:14
>> Edited by trev r on Tuesday 14th February 17:11
>> Edited by trev r on Tuesday 14th February 17:14
smeggy said:
From the face of it, it appears as though this chap waas genuinely driving like a pratt and the tragedy was only a matter of time, but he made the magic comment:
article said:
He also told a police officer that he didn't see Rebecca as he was looking at a speed camera.
www.wigantoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=66&ArticleID=780874
Ironically this is the same accident which is used an example in the 'Police using Fear against Drivers' and the propaganda pamphlet.
The guy is still a prat though for driving at even the lowest speed quoted at his possible speed.
Although it does bring to light how difficult it is to judge the speed of a vehicle, especially if they were not trained to do so, the report of the court case states:
'A number of witnesses gave evidence during the trial about Hill's speed immediately before the accident.
Estimates of his speed ranged from 40mph to 80mph.'
spnracing said:
...as there was no penalty for being 1 or 2 mph out in your calculation.
And there still isn't. How many people have been prosecuted for exceeding the limit by 1 MPH?
For the most extreme view on this look at;
www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html
A prime example of someone making a decision about something then manufacturing the evidence to 'prove' that statement to be true, no matter how contrived.
Give me a blank sheet of paper with 'The moon is square' written at the bottom and no matter how long I was given, you'd get a blank sheet of paper back.
Give Safespeed the same sheet of paper and not only would you get pages and pages of conclusive proof that the moon is square based on thousands of hours of research, he'd then publish a press release on 'planetheads.com'. Everyone on the forums there would rave about how true it all was and how Tony 'Bliar' is just conning us all into thinking the moon is round. Hmmph.
(Note the use of apostrophes for 'special sense' terms)
Only an utter numpty would ever use the 'I was looking at my speedo' excuse.
You're talking rubbish, and it's offensive rubbish.
If there's something wrong with Safe Speed work, please be exact and tell us what it is.
If you can't do that, then kindly refrain from making offensive and unsupportable statements.
spnracing said:
...as there was no penalty for being 1 or 2 mph out in your calculation.
And there still isn't. How many people have been prosecuted for exceeding the limit by 1 MPH?
For the most extreme view on this look at;
www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html
A prime example of someone making a decision about something then manufacturing the evidence to 'prove' that statement to be true, no matter how contrived.
Give me a blank sheet of paper with 'The moon is square' written at the bottom and no matter how long I was given, you'd get a blank sheet of paper back.
Give Safespeed the same sheet of paper and not only would you get pages and pages of conclusive proof that the moon is square based on thousands of hours of research, he'd then publish a press release on 'planetheads.com'. Everyone on the forums there would rave about how true it all was and how Tony 'Bliar' is just conning us all into thinking the moon is round. Hmmph.
(Note the use of apostrophes for 'special sense' terms)
Only an utter numpty would ever use the 'I was looking at my speedo' excuse.
You've just revealed to everyone that you haven't read, or certainly haven't been able to absorb and understand, the safespeed message.
Please try very hard not to be so achingly pro-camera business next time. Most people can see through you.
big Fat F'er said:
This made him an 'advanced' driver. Not a numpty.
depends what you drive, 30-35mph in either my car or my bike takes less than a second in any gear.. .. .. .. ..
suppose if you drive a "slower vehicle" this would be different but dont knock those advanced drivers using advanced machinery, go drive some yourself and you will know what we are talking about.
Im not saying in any way it is a valid excuse for the OP but a slip of the throttle in 6th gear at 70mph means 90mph comes in just over 2 seconds .. .. .. do I get any justice at all for having at least 3 times shorter stopping distance than the highway code states? ? ? ?
yeah I didnt think so.
big Fat F'er said:
There was also a case where an elderly pedestrian was run over by a driver who admitted he was checking his speedo at the time as there was a camera nearby.
There's also cases where a good driver was using good observation, anticipation and planning to see what was going on. By knowing the car, by using his experience, and by being able to 'sense' the car, he was able to accurately judge his speed. He was able to do this with the assistance of many many different inputs, only one of which was a quick glance at the speedo. He was not solely dependent on it, as that would actually make him a shite driver! He glanced at it when it was safe to do so (based on good all round observation and awareness) and found that driving this way meant he needed the speedo for confirmation only. Being an intelligent driver, he did not try and suggest that looking at a speedo causes accidents per se, rather he accepted his responsibility to drive safely, with awareness of what was going on around him. This made him an 'advanced' driver. Not a numpty.
Unfortunately the UK is not populated with 'advanced' drivers, or even, necessarily, 'good' drivers BFF, just those that the DSA have decided have reached the minimum level required for a licence to be issued.
Is that good enough? I'd say no.
Is that the situation as it is at the moment? I'd say yes.
It's all very well saying that the guy should have known what his speed was, and that he should have maintained his attention on the road and not needed that extra look at his speedo to ensure compliance with the law. Unfortunately he was either unwilling or unable to drive to the standard required without that speedo check. Does that make him a numpty? Or does that make the DSA examiner who passed him on test the numpty? Who knows...
>> Edited by MrsMiggins on Tuesday 14th February 22:45
@ Gary, no you don't (in respect of getting special treatment cos your bike stops in 105ft as opposed to 315ft)
But I see where you are coming from and agree with you to an extent...
My car stops a lot quicker than most of the stuff on the roads here (6000lb F350 dual axle pickup trucks) but did the cop give a toss when I got radar'd at 76 in a 60 (empty road)?
Did he
!
I know my original post might have seemed like a wry attempt at finding ways to hoon about when back in the UK, it wasn't. Believe me I retyped it a few times to try and word it better!
The onus is more on 'would it be more trouble than it's worth for plod and they would decide to warn rather than charge in the case of a non-EU citizen' hence the accent question - UK accent with US license might ring alarm bells (as in 'why is this MoP giving me a US license when he likely has a UK background based on the accent, surely nto to avoid points' kind of thinking)
This of course assumes person was driving reasonably safely and polite to the policeman, etc.
As for is someone a numpty because they cannot judge speed? I would say no. In fact the police themselves (in this country) have admitted that less than 5% (or maybe 2%) of people can ACCURATELY judge speed.
Yeah, the other 90-odd percent of us could probably have a rough idea of the speed (see the 40-80 Estimates of the Z3's speed), but what good is that if zero tolerance is the rule...?
>> Edited by texasjohn on Tuesday 14th February 22:56
But I see where you are coming from and agree with you to an extent...
My car stops a lot quicker than most of the stuff on the roads here (6000lb F350 dual axle pickup trucks) but did the cop give a toss when I got radar'd at 76 in a 60 (empty road)?
Did he
! I know my original post might have seemed like a wry attempt at finding ways to hoon about when back in the UK, it wasn't. Believe me I retyped it a few times to try and word it better!
The onus is more on 'would it be more trouble than it's worth for plod and they would decide to warn rather than charge in the case of a non-EU citizen' hence the accent question - UK accent with US license might ring alarm bells (as in 'why is this MoP giving me a US license when he likely has a UK background based on the accent, surely nto to avoid points' kind of thinking)
This of course assumes person was driving reasonably safely and polite to the policeman, etc.
As for is someone a numpty because they cannot judge speed? I would say no. In fact the police themselves (in this country) have admitted that less than 5% (or maybe 2%) of people can ACCURATELY judge speed.
Yeah, the other 90-odd percent of us could probably have a rough idea of the speed (see the 40-80 Estimates of the Z3's speed), but what good is that if zero tolerance is the rule...?
>> Edited by texasjohn on Tuesday 14th February 22:56
spnracing said:
You've just revealed to everyone that you haven't read, or certainly haven't been able to absorb and understand, the safespeed message.
You've just revealed to everyone that you are indeed one of the very people that would believe that the moon was square.
You've just revealed to everyone that you believe other people believe what you think they believe.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff