An idea for debate
Discussion
*I apologise if there is already a post with this idea on it elsewhere*
There has been much speculation of late regarding the possibility of black boxes and satellite tracking in everybody's cars to check on everybody's speeding, and I'm sure that the implications have been discussed. Much has also been said about the proliferation of speed/safety cameras.
I (have too much time on my hands) was just thinking of an acceptable resolution.
I wouldn't mind having a black box recording my speed all the time, if the laws regarding speed limits and insurance were changed.
I would like to see all speed limits abolished (obviously except for in high risk areas around schools etc) and replaced with speed limit guides - suggested maximum speeds.
To prevent motoring anarchy, what if additionally you were deemed to be 100% liable for any accident you're involved in if you were over the suggested max, regardless of the whose fault the accident actually was?
I am certain that in this theoretical scenario I would feel much more content, like I was keeping my speed down as a result of my initiative and decision, and the reduction in stress thanks to not having to worry about strictly monitoring my speedo in case of w@nk£r5 with speed guns would allow me to concentrate better on the road ahead and make me a safer, less tense driver.
If I wished to drive in a more spirited fashion I would need to seriously consider other road users, conditions etc. before making the judgment that it would be safe to do so because I would be opening myself up to a big insurance hike if anything at all was to go wrong, whether it be my fault or not!
(As with the current system) there are niggles, of course, but in essence I can't think of a better compromise.
What do you think?
(P.S. I know this is as useful as dreaming about winning the lottery, but it brings some temporary relief!)
There has been much speculation of late regarding the possibility of black boxes and satellite tracking in everybody's cars to check on everybody's speeding, and I'm sure that the implications have been discussed. Much has also been said about the proliferation of speed/safety cameras.
I (have too much time on my hands) was just thinking of an acceptable resolution.
I wouldn't mind having a black box recording my speed all the time, if the laws regarding speed limits and insurance were changed.
I would like to see all speed limits abolished (obviously except for in high risk areas around schools etc) and replaced with speed limit guides - suggested maximum speeds.
To prevent motoring anarchy, what if additionally you were deemed to be 100% liable for any accident you're involved in if you were over the suggested max, regardless of the whose fault the accident actually was?
I am certain that in this theoretical scenario I would feel much more content, like I was keeping my speed down as a result of my initiative and decision, and the reduction in stress thanks to not having to worry about strictly monitoring my speedo in case of w@nk£r5 with speed guns would allow me to concentrate better on the road ahead and make me a safer, less tense driver.
If I wished to drive in a more spirited fashion I would need to seriously consider other road users, conditions etc. before making the judgment that it would be safe to do so because I would be opening myself up to a big insurance hike if anything at all was to go wrong, whether it be my fault or not!
(As with the current system) there are niggles, of course, but in essence I can't think of a better compromise.
What do you think?
(P.S. I know this is as useful as dreaming about winning the lottery, but it brings some temporary relief!)
I'm afraid you don't appear to understand how the Labour Govt thinks...
They want speed limiters. They will track this by satellite. They will then lower speed limits everywhere, and kerchiing, more money into the coffers.. They will also make it 1% over the limit to obtain a fine... This beats having to sell peerages.
They want speed limiters. They will track this by satellite. They will then lower speed limits everywhere, and kerchiing, more money into the coffers.. They will also make it 1% over the limit to obtain a fine... This beats having to sell peerages.
jasandjules said:
I'm afraid you don't appear to understand how the Labour Govt thinks...
They want speed limiters. They will track this by satellite. They will then lower speed limits everywhere, and kerchiing, more money into the coffers.. They will also make it 1% over the limit to obtain a fine... This beats having to sell peerages.
They want speed limiters. They will track this by satellite. They will then lower speed limits everywhere, and kerchiing, more money into the coffers.. They will also make it 1% over the limit to obtain a fine... This beats having to sell peerages.
Now who doesnt understand labour...
The speed tickets go to pay for the road maintence (read, more speed cameras)
The peerages go straight into Tony's pocket, they do not pass go...
jaykaybi said:
* if additionally you were deemed to be 100% liable for any accident you're involved in if you were over the suggested max, regardless of the whose fault the accident actually was?
It's a great theory and it would slow most of us 'ordinary' drivers at the right point.
Trouble with schemes like this is that your rich types will then have carte blanche to drive like wazzocks. 100% liability is only a deterrent if you value your NCB and motor. If you only need to whip out your Coutts Credit card to sort everything out, the pressure is not there to slow down or avoid 'you and me' coming in the other direction.
I don't want to get tagged even if someone else is paying.
jaykaybi said:
If I wished to drive in a more spirited fashion I would need to seriously consider other road users, conditions etc. before making the judgment that it would be safe to do so because I would be opening myself up to a big insurance hike if anything at all was to go wrong, whether it be my fault or not!
The trouble is that no speed is entirely safe. Motoring is inherently dangerous. Of course with good driving, one element of which is selecting an appropriate speed, risks can be minimised to acceptable levels but they can never be eliminated. Would you be happy to take the blame for an accident in which, say, the other party was driving on the wrong side of the road round a blind bend, simply because you were travelling faster than the recommended speed, albeit a speed that you felt was appropriate for the circumstances?
Edited by SamHH on Thursday 20th July 11:50
I personally try to drive as fast as I think is safe for as far as I can see, and where I can see no further I approach anticipating the need to stop, so in that scenario I wouldn't be driving very fast.
I do see your point though, there would be certain situations like this that would call for extra consideration, such as an exemption where the other party could be shown to have been driving dangerously or illegally (wrong side of road + blind bend should cover that).
I do see your point though, there would be certain situations like this that would call for extra consideration, such as an exemption where the other party could be shown to have been driving dangerously or illegally (wrong side of road + blind bend should cover that).
jaykaybi said:
I personally try to drive as fast as I think is safe for as far as I can see, and where I can see no further I approach anticipating the need to stop, so in that scenario I wouldn't be driving very fast.
I do see your point though, there would be certain situations like this that would call for extra consideration, such as an exemption where the other party could be shown to have been driving dangerously or illegally (wrong side of road + blind bend should cover that).
I do see your point though, there would be certain situations like this that would call for extra consideration, such as an exemption where the other party could be shown to have been driving dangerously or illegally (wrong side of road + blind bend should cover that).
You could be blasting away at 80 mph or crawling along at 5 mph but if the person on the wrong side of the road doesn't stop you'd still crash. Anyway, maybe it was a bad example, but I think you see what I mean. It's possible to have an accident that isn't caused by the speed at which you were travelling so why should you be automatically blamed for it on the basis that you were travelling faster than the recommended speed? And what would happen if both parties were travelling faster than the recommended speed?
Edited by SamHH on Thursday 20th July 11:50
SamHH said:
It's possible to have an accident that isn't caused by the speed at which you were travelling so why should you be automatically blamed for it on the basis that you were travelling faster than the recommended speed?
Because in this theoretical system that fact would be the incentive to drive more carefully, and properly asess whether it is safe to drive more quickly ie. if your assessment is sound, you shouldn't have a crash.
Edited by jaykaybi on Thursday 20th July 12:21
Vaux said:
jaykaybi said:
I would like to see all speed limits abolished (obviously except for in high risk areas around schools etc) and replaced with speed limit guides - suggested maximum speeds.
I thought the current speed limit signs were just that - maximum speed for the road?
I mean under this theoretical system they should not be legal barriers over which you are automatically committing any offence (apart from in those exceptional high risk areas of course)
Vaux said:
jaykaybi said:
I would like to see all speed limits abolished (obviously except for in high risk areas around schools etc) and replaced with speed limit guides - suggested maximum speeds.
I thought the current speed limit signs were just that - maximum speed for the road?
'guides.....suggested', as opposed to absolute
jaykaybi said:
SamHH said:
It's possible to have an accident that isn't caused by the speed at which you were travelling so why should you be automatically blamed for it on the basis that you were travelling faster than the recommended speed?
Because in this theoretical system that fact would be the incentive to drive more carefully, and properly asess whether it is safe to drive more quickly ie. if your assessment is sound, you shouldn't have a crash.
Edited by jaykaybi on Thursday 20th July 12:21
It depends on whether you believe that all accidents where someone is driving faster than the speed limit (recommended or otherwise) must be caused by that speed, rather than caused by some other factor unrelated to speed. I don't and therefore I don't think motorists should be indiscriminately penalised for accidents where they were travelling faster than the speed limit.
Ideally, speed alone would never determine how people are treated. If they're driving dangerously they should be charge with that, and if they aren't they shouldn't. I think we're a long way away from that and getting worse, and I don't think it's remotely realistic to hope that we'll adopt that sort of policy.
The next best thing in my view would be to have the onus of proof change when you exceed the speed limit. If you're driving within the law, you're assumed innocent (of dangerous driving) unless shown to be guilty. If you're exceeding the speed limit you're assumed guilty unless you can show that you were driving safely. Not ideal, but better than what we have which is a fine and points on your license as soon as the needle goes past a number.
The next best thing in my view would be to have the onus of proof change when you exceed the speed limit. If you're driving within the law, you're assumed innocent (of dangerous driving) unless shown to be guilty. If you're exceeding the speed limit you're assumed guilty unless you can show that you were driving safely. Not ideal, but better than what we have which is a fine and points on your license as soon as the needle goes past a number.
jaykaybi said:
<snip>
There has been much speculation of late regarding the possibility of black boxes and satellite tracking in everybody's cars to check on everybody's speeding, and I'm sure that the implications have been discussed.
<snip>
There has been much speculation of late regarding the possibility of black boxes and satellite tracking in everybody's cars to check on everybody's speeding, and I'm sure that the implications have been discussed.
<snip>
My compromise with the Govt. over this:
Stop spying on everyone, you control-obsessed bar stewards!
End of compromise.
Given how unreliable my GPS is in towns, I can't imagine anything working that well in all cars. Especially with a tiny faraday cage around it. I mean heatshield.
The trick on this will be getting everyone to *want* one, despite the privacy issues. Look no further than the Oyster card.
First introduce road pricing on all roads. Then make it cheaper if you pay by satellite tracker. Then. Oopsie. We've got all this data linked to you.
The trick on this will be getting everyone to *want* one, despite the privacy issues. Look no further than the Oyster card.
First introduce road pricing on all roads. Then make it cheaper if you pay by satellite tracker. Then. Oopsie. We've got all this data linked to you.
jaykaybi said:
satellite tracking in everybody's cars to check on everybody's speeding
No, they will be using it to invoice you for every mile you drive and every time you set a wheel inside Ken's moneybox.
jaykaybi said:
I wouldn't mind having a black box recording my speed all the time, if the laws regarding speed limits and insurance were changed.
Again, any black box wont be recording your speed, just limiting it.
Indeed, but it could, and I'd rather it was recording my speed + not punishing me for it than having occasional speed checks that punish regardless of conditions and circumstances. It's a matter of safety, a worried driver will be tense and prone to making potentially costly mistakes...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff