Thursday 14th December 2006

118mph cop nipped on M9

Speeding dangerous? It depends says campaign

---

Snapped by the blokes on the bridge

Road safety campaign Safe Speed has issued a passionate plea for sense over speed limits. It follows the capture of the head of a police driver training school driving at 118mph by a mobile camera on a bridge over the M9 near Falkirk in November.

The driver, Inspector Paul Gee from the Durham Constabulary, got a notice of intended prosecution which the force hopes will be withdrawn, as Gee was on official business, and was in uniform at the time. The local force had been informed that this was a training run but, at the last minute, the route had been changed and the mobile camera crew was unaware of this.

Safe Speed said the question that the police should now answer is whether speeding is, in itself, dangerous. The campaign argues that, if the answer's no, then we need to urgently review the policies that are prosecuting millions on the basis of a lie. If yes, then we need to stop training police officers and others to drive at high speeds on public roads as an urgent matter of public safety.

The campaign argued that the answer is of course neither, and that it depends on the circumstances, in which case the government needs to consider the circumstances in cases where the public is being prosecuted -- something that speed cameras cannot do.

Safe Speed said that 'speeding' or 'exceeding a speed limit' is not, ever, in itself dangerous.

Campaign founder Paul Smith said: "There is no magic number that marks the difference between safe and dangerous. Neither is it a simple matter of suggesting that 'we must draw a line somewhere', because the safety of a speed varies wildly with circumstances."

The campaign said that if the speed limit:

• is right for a Porsche, it's wrong for a van
• is right on the straight, it's wrong on the bend
• is right in the dry, it's wrong in the wet
• is right when it's quiet, it's wrong when it's busy
• is right for a novice, it's wrong for an experienced driver
• is right during the day, it's wrong during the night
• is right when it's clear, it's wrong when it's foggy
• is right when the road is wide, it's wrong when the road is narrow
• is right when the pavements are deserted, it's wrong when there are pedestrians about

Smith said: "Drivers naturally take account of these factors. Road safety depends on them doing so. The speed limit is blunt and imprecise, but in the days of discretionary enforcement by police officers served us well. these days, with camera enforcement, the speed limit is gradually becoming a target and gradually replacing the previous safe behaviour.

"In fact the speed limit is just a proxy for the desired behaviour. The core problem is that speed cameras have promoted the proxy beyond the status of the desired behaviour.

"Modern speed enforcement by camera exists because it's expedient. The authorities clearly thought that it was a valid way to improve road safety, but history already proves them wrong. Road deaths simply haven't fallen as expected and earlier this year we learned that hospitalisations of road crash victims haven't fallen for a decade either.

"The ongoing damage to the police-public relationship is one serious side effect of speed camera policy. Government must act now to stop the very serious damage getting any worse. The hypocrisy must stop."

^{Picture courtesy www.speedcam.co.uk}

[val]

BF DING

[percy flage]

val said:

BF DING

GF DONG?

[ads_green]

I agree in principle but it's impossible to make workable.

Based on what safespeed have said there is for a given set of conditions a "safe" speed and an "unsafe speed".

The problems are that conditions are open to interepation and what somebody might consider "safe" and others might say is "unsafe".

Having a speed limit defined like this would probably make things a lot worse as then it'll most likely be down only to a police officer's discretation and there wouldn't be any real defence. With the current system of fixed speeds determined by either road or sign at least takes that factor out of the hands of both drivers and police officers.

[havoc]

Very eloquent article...hopefully this might reach a few more ears than before. Well done Paul.

[chrisgr31]

I noticed that Brake were saying, in relation to this case, that police drivers shouldn't be allowed to do these speeds. Do we want crooks caught or not? Otherwise all I crook needs to do is exceed the speed limit and they get away!

[jackass]

ads_green said:

I agree in principle but it's impossible to make workable.

Based on what safespeed have said there is for a given set of conditions a "safe" speed and an "unsafe speed".

The problems are that conditions are open to interepation and what somebody might consider "safe" and others might say is "unsafe".

Having a speed limit defined like this would probably make things a lot worse as then it'll most likely be down only to a police officer's discretation and there wouldn't be any real defence. With the current system of fixed speeds determined by either road or sign at least takes that factor out of the hands of both drivers and police officers.

I agree to some extent, but the number of different speed limits in the UK is crazy. When you cross a border driving in Europe it tells you what the speed limit is for towns, country & motorways (and motorways in the wet for some countries). In the UK you couldn't possibly do this as we have roads with limits at every interval from 10mph to 70mph, and regularly the limits change every few hundred yards - this does nothing but confuse a driver who can't necessarily see the change in conditions that require the altered limit.

[val]

I think in UK speeding fines are a joke. And fixing that might very well help with the whole issue.

For example in russia, if you exceed speed for like 10mph, the fine is 1 quid (officially). In UK a good price might be around 5 quid. Without any points of course.

Then it rises dramtically of course. For example if you are 40 mph over the limit, your driving licence migth be taken and fine starts from 20 quid upto licence confiscation for half a year.

But driving 5 miles over the limit and getting 3 points and 60 quid... Silly.

[paulie-mafia]

Some very good points there, just a shame that they will probably fall on deaf and ignorant ears as usual! I got done on a straight, empty, daylit stretch of the M4 at 120mph and while it is technically against the law there was absolutely nothing inherently dangerous about the speed I was doing or way I was driving.

Keep up the good work Paul!

[sato]

chrisgr31 said:

I noticed that Brake were saying, in relation to this case, that police drivers shouldn't be allowed to do these speeds. Do we want crooks caught or not? Otherwise all I crook needs to do is exceed the speed limit and they get away!

I really do wonder whether some of these people even leave the house. There are numerous motorways that when conditions are correct, 100mph+ in a modern car feels slow. Saying a fully trained police response unit can not do 119mph in response to a real emergency quite frankly shows no understanding of the risks in question at all.

[grahambell]

ads_green said:

Having a speed limit defined like this would probably make things a lot worse as then it'll most likely be down only to a police officer's discretation and there wouldn't be any real defence. With the current system of fixed speeds determined by either road or sign at least takes that factor out of the hands of both drivers and police officers.

But 'fixed speeds determined by either road or sign' can't allow for conditions that aren't fixed, such as ice or thick fog, either of which can render driving at a 'legal speed' highly dangerous.

When I'm driving I'm the best person to judge a 'safe speed' for the conditions. A speed that has nothing to do with some arbitrary number dreamt up by some self-important politicos sitting on their fat arses in some office or committee room.

Similarly traffic cops can use their discretion on whether or not somebody's driving is appropriate for the conditions, whether or not they're exceeding the limit.

Speed cameras can't and don't. Nor can they do anything about drunk drivers etc. It's enforcement by numbers, and as over 10 years of increasing reliance on speed cameras has shown, it doesn't make the roads safer. Because it fails to deal with the true causes of 95% of road accidents.

It's high time we had a return to a common sense approach on speed limit enforcement. Yes, let's have posted limits as a guideline, but let's allow some sensible discretion on observance and enforcement.

[Peter Ward]

Excellent article in response to yet another instance of is-it-or-isn't-it-safe-in-principle speeding, that gets to the nub of the problem.

As such, we can expect it to be ignored.... but "they" can't keep ignoring it for ever can they? If Paul could get this article taken up by the Express/Mail/Sun then it would add to the increasing pressure for a policy change. Blair's in the mood for some of these -- multiculturalism is the latest to be ditched -- so perhaps we could catch him while he's looking for something else to drop?

[ads_green]

grahambell said:

ads_green said:

Having a speed limit defined like this would probably make things a lot worse as then it'll most likely be down only to a police officer's discretation and there wouldn't be any real defence. With the current system of fixed speeds determined by either road or sign at least takes that factor out of the hands of both drivers and police officers.

But 'fixed speeds determined by either road or sign' can't allow for conditions that aren't fixed, such as ice or thick fog, either of which can render driving at a 'legal speed' highly dangerous.

When I'm driving I'm the best person to judge a 'safe speed' for the conditions. A speed that has nothing to do with some arbitrary number dreamt up by some self-important politicos sitting on their fat arses in some office or committee room.

Similarly traffic cops can use their discretion on whether or not somebody's driving is appropriate for the conditions, whether or not they're exceeding the limit.

Speed cameras can't and don't. Nor can they do anything about drunk drivers etc. It's enforcement by numbers, and as over 10 years of increasing reliance on speed cameras has shown, it doesn't make the roads safer. Because it fails to deal with the true causes of 95% of road accidents.

It's high time we had a return to a common sense approach on speed limit enforcement. Yes, let's have posted limits as a guideline, but let's allow some sensible discretion on observance and enforcement.

The problem is that whilst you may be a great and safe driver we all know that there are alot of drivers who frankly don't deserve a license. We can't have one rule for some and another for the rest. The only feasible method is to pick a number that is safe for the majority of drviers and vehicles. I do agree that motorway / dual carriage way speed limits do not take into account 30+ years of engineering that would make speeds of 80,90 and 100mph as close to be as safe as 70mph is now.

Variable speed limits make sense but should work both ways - for example 100mph on the M6 toll after 7pm is more than reasonable.

I think speed cameras do have a place (motorway roadworks and outside schools) but are used inappropriately in most cases.

I would completely support more uniformed police on the roads and considerably harsher penalties for crimes such as no insurance, no license etc (Personally I say crush the cars for non-insured or non-licensed people!)

[HUGE]

chrisgr31 said:

I noticed that Brake were saying, in relation to this case, that police drivers shouldn't be allowed to do these speeds. Do we want crooks caught or not? Otherwise all I crook needs to do is exceed the speed limit and they get away!

...aha...but the escaping crooks will prob get snapped and get a fine and penalty points......job done as far as Mr Blair and his cronies are concerned...remember...speeding is the worst crime you can commit in this country judging by the resources currently being thrown at it !

[CTE]

The problem is that whilst you may be a great and safe driver we all know that there are alot of drivers who frankly don't deserve a license. We can't have one rule for some and another for the rest. The only feasible method is to pick a number that is safe for the majority of drviers and vehicles. I do agree that motorway / dual carriage way speed limits do not take into account 30+ years of engineering that would make speeds of 80,90 and 100mph as close to be as safe as 70mph is now.

Variable speed limits make sense but should work both ways - for example 100mph on the M6 toll after 7pm is more than reasonable.

I think speed cameras do have a place (motorway roadworks and outside schools) but are used inappropriately in most cases.

I would completely support more uniformed police on the roads and considerably harsher penalties for crimes such as no insurance, no license etc (Personally I say crush the cars for non-insured or non-licensed people!)


I pretty well totally agree with everything ads green said. Pity the arrogant, single minded beaurocrats will not.....yet!

[GTRene]

ads_green said:

grahambell said:

ads_green said:

Having a speed limit defined like this would probably make things a lot worse as then it'll most likely be down only to a police officer's discretation and there wouldn't be any real defence. With the current system of fixed speeds determined by either road or sign at least takes that factor out of the hands of both drivers and police officers.

But 'fixed speeds determined by either road or sign' can't allow for conditions that aren't fixed, such as ice or thick fog, either of which can render driving at a 'legal speed' highly dangerous.

When I'm driving I'm the best person to judge a 'safe speed' for the conditions. A speed that has nothing to do with some arbitrary number dreamt up by some self-important politicos sitting on their fat arses in some office or committee room.

Similarly traffic cops can use their discretion on whether or not somebody's driving is appropriate for the conditions, whether or not they're exceeding the limit.

Speed cameras can't and don't. Nor can they do anything about drunk drivers etc. It's enforcement by numbers, and as over 10 years of increasing reliance on speed cameras has shown, it doesn't make the roads safer. Because it fails to deal with the true causes of 95% of road accidents.

It's high time we had a return to a common sense approach on speed limit enforcement. Yes, let's have posted limits as a guideline, but let's allow some sensible discretion on observance and enforcement.

The problem is that whilst you may be a great and safe driver we all know that there are alot of drivers who frankly don't deserve a license. We can't have one rule for some and another for the rest. The only feasible method is to pick a number that is safe for the majority of drviers and vehicles. I do agree that motorway / dual carriage way speed limits do not take into account 30+ years of engineering that would make speeds of 80,90 and 100mph as close to be as safe as 70mph is now.

Variable speed limits make sense but should work both ways - for example 100mph on the M6 toll after 7pm is more than reasonable.

I think speed cameras do have a place (motorway roadworks and outside schools) but are used inappropriately in most cases.

I would completely support more uniformed police on the roads and considerably harsher penalties for crimes such as no insurance, no license etc (Personally I say crush the cars for non-insured or non-licensed people!)

mostly agree with both also a good write up Paul for most camera's only the Red light camera's can do their work good and fare! but the most of the rest not, bad drivers you will always have and even without a license, you can't help that with more rules!! and its only a small groep(I hope)
maybe best to see if someone is a bad driver or unsafe driver is to put more videocamera's to tape all dangerous area's that way its not a moment of speeding orso but you can proofe over a longer distance that somebody is a dangerous person in driving? because speed alone does not kill...and a flash moment of the cameravan or a scamera(fixd) does not tell the whole story it only tells you that on that flash of a moment somebody was speeding but it does not say that it was dangerous on that moment!!! but a movie/video movement of the whole area(a dangerspot?) can tell if there where kids or pedestrians or cars or busy or that your a worse driver all those things by moving-life video...and not a flash only picture car moment...
GTRene

[neelyp]

The officer in question was not responding to an emergency call (Durham is quite a distance from Falkirk) he was carrying out a risk assessment for a training exercise.
BBC story here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/t

[clonmult]

Some interesting points, but one of those bullet points seems wrong :

- is right for a novice, it's wrong for an experienced driver

Surely that should be the other way round?

[chrisgr31]

HUGE said:

chrisgr31 said:

I noticed that Brake were saying, in relation to this case, that police drivers shouldn't be allowed to do these speeds. Do we want crooks caught or not? Otherwise all I crook needs to do is exceed the speed limit and they get away!

...aha...but the escaping crooks will prob get snapped and get a fine and penalty points......job done as far as Mr Blair and his cronies are concerned...remember...speeding is the worst crime you can commit in this country judging by the resources currently being thrown at it !

Ah but it was also said in todays Daily Mail (I know!) that 25% of all accidents are caused by drivers who are uninsured, and if thats so cars may be unregistered etc so therefore won't get caught speeding!

Maybe the inference we should infer that this means its only uninsured drivers that speed!

[Globulator]

article said:

The authorities clearly thought that it was a valid way to improve road safety, but history already proves them wrong. Road deaths simply haven't fallen as expected and earlier this year we learned that hospitalisations of road crash victims haven't fallen for a decade either.

I think this is being very charitable. My view is that the SCP have known for some time that they are letting people die by teaching everyone that speed is everything and all that matters. People don't judge their speed by conditions anymore at all.

Seeing a car sweep down a busy highstreet recently at I'd guess 30 the other day on pointing out to him that perhaps he'd nearly killed a bunch of kids playing on the pavement the response? A blank look and 'I wasn't speeding - I'm a safe driver'.

jackass said:

I agree to some extent, but the number of different speed limits in the UK is crazy. When you cross a border driving in Europe it tells you what the speed limit is for towns, country & motorways (and motorways in the wet for some countries). In the UK you couldn't possibly do this as we have roads with limits at every interval from 10mph to 70mph, and regularly the limits change every few hundred yards - this does nothing but confuse a driver who can't necessarily see the change in conditions that require the altered limit.

Totally agree, the north circular A406 being a prime example, just try driving round from the A10 to the M1 and you hit 30s, 40s and 50s (on a quiet day), real concentration is required to pick out exactly where these begin and end and which ones the speed cameras apply to. What a ridiculous amount of concentration just to stay within the limits - particularly as I had no desire to speed along there anyway. Didn't most of it used to be 50 or something? A blanket 40mph would be sooo much easier, it might even make me pay attention to other road users!

[Davi]

clonmult said:

Some interesting points, but one of those bullet points seems wrong :

- is right for a novice, it's wrong for an experienced driver

Surely that should be the other way round?

not necessarily - limiting a novice to 20mph on a stretch may be the right thing to do, but restricting an experienced driver to the same speed not necessary.