Response to my letter about 6 points for speeding...
Discussion
I wrote to the transport minister a little while back complaining about the governments proposal to increase the number of penalty points to six - this was my response...
DfT said:
Dear Mr. Bing o,
Thank you for your e-mail to Jim Fitzpatrick dated 10 November about road safety issues. I have been asked to reply.
The significant savings in accidents which can be achieved by the proper enforcement of speeding offences can only be made if the right balance of penalty measures is used. The present penalty structure revolves around fines and penalty points on the licence which may ultimately lead to disqualification by ‘totting up’. For most people, though a fine may be painful, disqualification is the penalty that matters. For the great majority of drivers, the threat of disqualification will often be sufficient to encourage compliance with the law, which makes our roads safer for everyone.
The Road Safety Act includes enabling powers for the Government to introduce graduated fixed penalties for speeding which might include a lower fixed penalty of two points for lesser breaches of speed limits, as well as higher penalties for those exceeding the speed limits by greater amounts. These proposals will be subject to a full public consultation and final structure will be considered by Parliament before coming into effect.
The Department agrees that teaching children to use the road safely, both as pedestrians and as cyclists, is vital so they can develop the skills to be safe and responsible road users in later life. Having said this, it is important not to blame children for behaving like children. The responsibility for their safety rests with all of us - as parents and as teachers, and as drivers, because they cannot be expected always to apply what they have learned.
The Department were saddened by the increase in the number of children dying on the roads last year. Clearly any death is one too many, but the absolute figures, which include car occupants as well as pedestrians and cyclists, are very small - which is why they can be volatile from year to year. The 169 deaths in Britain in 2006 were around the same level as the 166 in 2004, which at the time was the lowest ever recorded figure. And in 2006 injury accidents continued to fall, as they have done for some years: serious injuries to children were down by 6% and the total number of child casualties (all severities) fell by 9%. Compared to the mid-1990's child deaths and serious injuries on our roads are down by 52%. But we are working to achieve further cuts.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely
I'm really not sure how to reply...? Wasn't it the DfT's own figures that put exceeding the speed limit on rural roads as a cause of KSI's at 4% Thank you for your e-mail to Jim Fitzpatrick dated 10 November about road safety issues. I have been asked to reply.
The significant savings in accidents which can be achieved by the proper enforcement of speeding offences can only be made if the right balance of penalty measures is used. The present penalty structure revolves around fines and penalty points on the licence which may ultimately lead to disqualification by ‘totting up’. For most people, though a fine may be painful, disqualification is the penalty that matters. For the great majority of drivers, the threat of disqualification will often be sufficient to encourage compliance with the law, which makes our roads safer for everyone.
The Road Safety Act includes enabling powers for the Government to introduce graduated fixed penalties for speeding which might include a lower fixed penalty of two points for lesser breaches of speed limits, as well as higher penalties for those exceeding the speed limits by greater amounts. These proposals will be subject to a full public consultation and final structure will be considered by Parliament before coming into effect.
The Department agrees that teaching children to use the road safely, both as pedestrians and as cyclists, is vital so they can develop the skills to be safe and responsible road users in later life. Having said this, it is important not to blame children for behaving like children. The responsibility for their safety rests with all of us - as parents and as teachers, and as drivers, because they cannot be expected always to apply what they have learned.
The Department were saddened by the increase in the number of children dying on the roads last year. Clearly any death is one too many, but the absolute figures, which include car occupants as well as pedestrians and cyclists, are very small - which is why they can be volatile from year to year. The 169 deaths in Britain in 2006 were around the same level as the 166 in 2004, which at the time was the lowest ever recorded figure. And in 2006 injury accidents continued to fall, as they have done for some years: serious injuries to children were down by 6% and the total number of child casualties (all severities) fell by 9%. Compared to the mid-1990's child deaths and serious injuries on our roads are down by 52%. But we are working to achieve further cuts.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely
DfT said:
it is important not to blame children for behaving like children. The responsibility for their safety rests with all of us - as parents and as teachers, and as drivers, because they cannot be expected always to apply what they have learned.
WTF!!!! 
Why not?!?!?! I did and I'm sure most others did and I'm taking the time to make sure my two children do to the point that my three year old can now cross a road safely!!! If a three year old can do it, then why not other children?
Big Rod said:
DfT said:
it is important not to blame children for behaving like children. The responsibility for their safety rests with all of us - as parents and as teachers, and as drivers, because they cannot be expected always to apply what they have learned.
WTF!!!! Why not?!?!?! I did and I'm sure most others did and I'm taking the time to make sure my two children do to the point that my three year old can now cross a road safely!!! If a three year old can do it, then why not other children?
Big Rod said:
I'm taking the time to make sure my two children do to the point that my three year old can now cross a road safely!!! If a three year old can do it, then why not other children?
OK, maybe a three year old can cross the road safely with sufficient drilling, whilst being watched and paying attention. But children don't always pay attention to what they are doing. What about when there is a police helicopter overhead, or their ball bounces into the street, or they are being chased by a dog?John
LathamJohnP said:
Big Rod said:
I'm taking the time to make sure my two children do to the point that my three year old can now cross a road safely!!! If a three year old can do it, then why not other children?
OK, maybe a three year old can cross the road safely with sufficient drilling, whilst being watched and paying attention. But children don't always pay attention to what they are doing. What about when there is a police helicopter overhead, or their ball bounces into the street, or they are being chased by a dog?John
Shit happens, no point in grinding the world to a halt in case little Billy fails Darwin's first law...
Sounds like a typical response.
I WOULD write back and point out, in words of one syllable or less, their OWN statistics (i.e. 4%...try and find it if you can to refer them to), and then ask why they are focusing so much on speed when it is such a minor cause of accidents, and when are they going to focus on x, y, and z (the top-3 causes).
I would also pre-empt their response about speed increasing severity, by pointing out that prevention is better than cure, and it would be far better to have far fewer people killed than a few less people killed but at the same time more disabled by 'slower' accidents.
You never know, if your letter is still polite and conversational you may actually get their interest...you know, plant some seeds of doubt...
I WOULD write back and point out, in words of one syllable or less, their OWN statistics (i.e. 4%...try and find it if you can to refer them to), and then ask why they are focusing so much on speed when it is such a minor cause of accidents, and when are they going to focus on x, y, and z (the top-3 causes).
I would also pre-empt their response about speed increasing severity, by pointing out that prevention is better than cure, and it would be far better to have far fewer people killed than a few less people killed but at the same time more disabled by 'slower' accidents.
You never know, if your letter is still polite and conversational you may actually get their interest...you know, plant some seeds of doubt...
Bing o said:
DfT][... said:
The significant savings in accidents which can be achieved by the proper enforcement of speeding offences can only be made if the right balance of penalty measures is used. [...]
Could I just point out at this juncture that 12000 people a year die in hospitals not as a result of mrsa or colostrum dificile but simply because of thrombosis.
This is scandalous and the health service is baulking at £1 per day on blood thinning tablets or compress socks.
I remember years ago when my aunt was in hospital that they had an exrcise and physio regime in place.
Life is cheap in this country.. in fact it is so cheap it can actually be used to raise money for the government.
Childrens tragic deaths are used as an excuse to bring in even greater fines and cameras and basically revenue even though the system isn't working.
Notice the admission that childrens deaths have increased and this is after increasing cameras.Doesn't that prove the whole thing is wrong.
the biggest flaw of speed cameras is that (even more so now with infra red cameras) the speeder doesn't get stopped at the time he isnt warned about his behaviour and he doesn't slow down . . until the NIP arrives 14 days later.
and what of the disqualified drivers?
With 6 points for an offence only two offences will be needed to reach disqualification.
That will surely mean a rise in uninsured disqualified drivers.
But they shouldn't drive you say..
like hell . . how does this economy work?
It needs personal mobility for the whole capitalist system to operate.
deprive people of their livelihood and the only increase will be crime.
either by driving while disqualified or by stealing to pay bills.
This is scandalous and the health service is baulking at £1 per day on blood thinning tablets or compress socks.
I remember years ago when my aunt was in hospital that they had an exrcise and physio regime in place.
Life is cheap in this country.. in fact it is so cheap it can actually be used to raise money for the government.
Childrens tragic deaths are used as an excuse to bring in even greater fines and cameras and basically revenue even though the system isn't working.
Notice the admission that childrens deaths have increased and this is after increasing cameras.Doesn't that prove the whole thing is wrong.
the biggest flaw of speed cameras is that (even more so now with infra red cameras) the speeder doesn't get stopped at the time he isnt warned about his behaviour and he doesn't slow down . . until the NIP arrives 14 days later.
and what of the disqualified drivers?
With 6 points for an offence only two offences will be needed to reach disqualification.
That will surely mean a rise in uninsured disqualified drivers.
But they shouldn't drive you say..
like hell . . how does this economy work?
It needs personal mobility for the whole capitalist system to operate.
deprive people of their livelihood and the only increase will be crime.
either by driving while disqualified or by stealing to pay bills.
Bing o said:
DfT][... said:
The significant savings in accidents which can be achieved by the proper enforcement of speeding offences can only be made if the right balance of penalty measures is used. [...]
ASk them is it safer for Ms Smith and her 1.1L Metro to plough into little Johnny at 30mph as he runs into the road and she has the reactions of a drunk dog, and the road awareness of a peanut, or somewhat better for Mr Jones in his 911 to have full road awareness and stop from 35mph to 0 saving little Johnny in less time than Ms Smith even reacts to little Jonny bouncing over the roof of her car.
havoc said:
Sounds like a typical response.
...why they are focusing so much on speed when it is such a minor cause of accidents, and when are they going to focus on x, y, and z (the top-3 causes).
Because although speed is rarely the cause of the collision, it almost is always the significant factor in the severity of the damage or injury!...why they are focusing so much on speed when it is such a minor cause of accidents, and when are they going to focus on x, y, and z (the top-3 causes).
Mg6b said:
havoc said:
Sounds like a typical response.
...why they are focusing so much on speed when it is such a minor cause of accidents, and when are they going to focus on x, y, and z (the top-3 causes).
Because although speed is rarely the cause of the collision, it almost is always the significant factor in the severity of the damage or injury!...why they are focusing so much on speed when it is such a minor cause of accidents, and when are they going to focus on x, y, and z (the top-3 causes).
mark69sheer said:
Could I just point out at this juncture that 12000 people a year die in hospitals not as a result of mrsa or colostrum dificile but simply because of thrombosis.
This is scandalous and the health service is baulking at £1 per day on blood thinning tablets or compress socks.
I remember years ago when my aunt was in hospital that they had an exrcise and physio regime in place.
Life is cheap in this country.. in fact it is so cheap it can actually be used to raise money for the government.
Childrens tragic deaths are used as an excuse to bring in even greater fines and cameras and basically revenue even though the system isn't working.
Notice the admission that childrens deaths have increased and this is after increasing cameras.Doesn't that prove the whole thing is wrong.
the biggest flaw of speed cameras is that (even more so now with infra red cameras) the speeder doesn't get stopped at the time he isnt warned about his behaviour and he doesn't slow down . . until the NIP arrives 14 days later.
and what of the disqualified drivers?
With 6 points for an offence only two offences will be needed to reach disqualification.
That will surely mean a rise in uninsured disqualified drivers.
But they shouldn't drive you say..
like hell . . how does this economy work?
It needs personal mobility for the whole capitalist system to operate.
deprive people of their livelihood and the only increase will be crime.
either by driving while disqualified or by stealing to pay bills.
And of course one would rather drive at 106mph and get a two week ban each time with no points afterwards, rather than than drive at 90mph and get 6 points each time and thus a much longer ban for two offences...This is scandalous and the health service is baulking at £1 per day on blood thinning tablets or compress socks.
I remember years ago when my aunt was in hospital that they had an exrcise and physio regime in place.
Life is cheap in this country.. in fact it is so cheap it can actually be used to raise money for the government.
Childrens tragic deaths are used as an excuse to bring in even greater fines and cameras and basically revenue even though the system isn't working.
Notice the admission that childrens deaths have increased and this is after increasing cameras.Doesn't that prove the whole thing is wrong.
the biggest flaw of speed cameras is that (even more so now with infra red cameras) the speeder doesn't get stopped at the time he isnt warned about his behaviour and he doesn't slow down . . until the NIP arrives 14 days later.
and what of the disqualified drivers?
With 6 points for an offence only two offences will be needed to reach disqualification.
That will surely mean a rise in uninsured disqualified drivers.
But they shouldn't drive you say..
like hell . . how does this economy work?
It needs personal mobility for the whole capitalist system to operate.
deprive people of their livelihood and the only increase will be crime.
either by driving while disqualified or by stealing to pay bills.
Mg6b said:
havoc said:
Sounds like a typical response.
...why they are focusing so much on speed when it is such a minor cause of accidents, and when are they going to focus on x, y, and z (the top-3 causes).
Because although speed is rarely the cause of the collision, it almost is always the significant factor in the severity of the damage or injury!...why they are focusing so much on speed when it is such a minor cause of accidents, and when are they going to focus on x, y, and z (the top-3 causes).
havoc had already said said:
I would also pre-empt their response about speed increasing severity, by pointing out that prevention is better than cure, and it would be far better to have far fewer people killed than a few less people killed but at the same time more disabled by 'slower' accidents.
Good selective quoting there mg6b...did you not BOTHER to read what I'd written?!?I'd far rather not be hit by a car at all than hit by one at slow speed, thanks very much.
Or, to put it another way...do you want me to play Russian Roulette with your head and only 1 bullet out of 6, or your stomach and 3 bullets out of 6?!? Because, exact figures aside, THAT is what the government is doing with it's banal focus on the far-too-simplistic 'speed kills' mantra!!!
Mg6b said:
havoc said:
Sounds like a typical response.
...why they are focusing so much on speed when it is such a minor cause of accidents, and when are they going to focus on x, y, and z (the top-3 causes).
Because although speed is rarely the cause of the collision, it almost is always the significant factor in the severity of the damage or injury!...why they are focusing so much on speed when it is such a minor cause of accidents, and when are they going to focus on x, y, and z (the top-3 causes).
yes thats right speeding can be done safely. otherwise you would have to scrap police advanced driver training on health and safety grounds.
I have sped my whole life but I give myself a good safety margin for braking and observation so my speeding has never put me or anyone else in danger.
Edited by mark69sheer on Wednesday 21st November 01:52
mark69sheer said:
Mg6b said:
havoc said:
Sounds like a typical response.
...why they are focusing so much on speed when it is such a minor cause of accidents, and when are they going to focus on x, y, and z (the top-3 causes).
Because although speed is rarely the cause of the collision, it almost is always the significant factor in the severity of the damage or injury!...why they are focusing so much on speed when it is such a minor cause of accidents, and when are they going to focus on x, y, and z (the top-3 causes).
yes thats right speeding can be done safely. otherwise you would have to scrap police advanced driver training on health and safety grounds.
I have sped my whole life but I give myself a good safety margin for braking and observation so my speeding has never put me or anyone else in danger.
I see a plain statement that the speed in a collision has an effect on damage/injury.
That is just a statement of fact.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 21st November 07:06
But an (the) artificially low limit on a motorway or DC, when enforced causes bunching of traffic, more time in each other's blind spot during slower overtakes, fewer places to go if another driver makes a poorly judged lane change and so on. I've seen that happen rather a lot of times. Totally different to the conditions in a built-up 30 zone.
More chance of a collision happening in the first place due to poor separation of the vehicles, hence an increased risk to me.
Strange how I see few collisions when conditions allow a spread of speeds on the motorway up to 90 or so. I see more problems caused my minimal speed differentials between lanes, than too much. There is an optimum speed differential that is rarely achievable whilst keeping to the law.
A very simplistic view, Von.
More chance of a collision happening in the first place due to poor separation of the vehicles, hence an increased risk to me.
Strange how I see few collisions when conditions allow a spread of speeds on the motorway up to 90 or so. I see more problems caused my minimal speed differentials between lanes, than too much. There is an optimum speed differential that is rarely achievable whilst keeping to the law.
A very simplistic view, Von.
Edited by alphadog on Wednesday 21st November 07:37
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff