A question of good progress
Discussion
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
What is strict enforcement ?
Enforcement that penalises drivers who exceed the speed limit by a small amount.
What's a small amount ?
Oh, was that a serious question? It's an amount that is small. But it doesn't seem sensible to try to discuss *how* strictly the law should be enforced (how small is 'small') unless you accept the fundamental point that it it is not desirable to enforce it absolutely strictly even if it was practical to. And I know how you dislike having your acceptance taken for granted.
I've never said that I want people prosecuted for minor infringements. I was just interested in what you might consider small a small amount as you brought it up. Of course if you don't want to say I accept that (but seeing as I accept that it is not desirebale to enforce absolutely strictly)
vonhosen said:
I've never said that I want people prosecuted for minor infringements. I was just interested in what you might consider small a small amount as you brought it up. Of course if you don't want to say I accept that (but seeing as I accept that it is not desirebale to enforce absolutely strictly)
Since we're talking about enforcement purely on the basis of speed with no implication of actual danger, I think penalties should only be applied when speeds are:
* far enough over the limit for the difference to be readily apparent to the typical sensible and competant driver driving normally, and
* sufficiently outside the range of speeds that are generally considered as appropriate for typical conditions, to be generally considered as excessive for typical conditions
I would consider a 10% variation in speed as negligeable. 20% is noticeable, but not enough on its own to constitute a significant danger. 30% is very noticeable and enough to make a significant difference to safety.
On the basis that the 85%ile speed is the speed that 85% of drivers feel is safe and sensible for typical conditions, I would draw a line at about 25%-30% above that speed and say that a competent driver at that speed would be well aware that they were significantly in excess of the speed limit, and that the speed was probably inappropriate for typical conditions.
35 in a 30 limit - no big deal, easily done.
40 in a 30 limit - not something you are likely to do by accident and a bit excessive
85 on a motorway - no big deal, happens every day
100 on a motorway - you're asking for trouble and you know it
Remember that I'm talking about people being penalised purely on the basis of their speed, with no implication at all that they were driving dangerously or that their speed was excessive for the conditions. I would expect ordinary law abiding drivers who are making any attempt at all to comply with the speed limit, would exceed that threshold exceptionally rarely and would probably agree if caught doing it, that they were in the wrong. I would not say the same for people who have 1/4 of their license taken away for being 10%+2 over the limit in circumstances where they believe they were driving safely.
Edited by GreenV8S on Saturday 10th June 14:44
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
vonhosen said:
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
What is strict enforcement ?
Enforcement that penalises drivers who exceed the speed limit by a small amount.
What's a small amount ?
40 - 50 per cent.
flemke said:
Wouldn't that be a tiny amount? "Small" is bigger.
Warning shot across the bows eh, flemke?. I thought I would have been in trouble with Von, but he seems to be mellowing in his old age and getting to understand us a bit better, so that's good. Credit where it's due etc.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
I've never said that I want people prosecuted for minor infringements. I was just interested in what you might consider small a small amount as you brought it up. Of course if you don't want to say I accept that (but seeing as I accept that it is not desirebale to enforce absolutely strictly)
Since we're talking about enforcement purely on the basis of speed with no implication of actual danger, I think penalties should only be applied when speeds are:
* far enough over the limit for the difference to be readily apparent to the typical sensible and competant driver driving normally, and
* sufficiently outside the range of speeds that are generally considered as appropriate for typical conditions, to be generally considered as excessive for typical conditions
Green - can't you see the problem here . Firstly, I assume that the "typical sensible and competant driver driving normally" is one that would agree with your stance. Secondly, is the figure variable on the day, in which case how do you collect the opinions, or is it fixed.
Lets say that in a 30mph zone you want the limit at which a penalty is automatically applied to be at 38mph (just as an example). In other words, anyone driving at or above 38mph, will automatically get booked. So you are proposing a fixed limit, without any variation (i.e. 37mph okay, 38mph wrong) and not linked to specifically unsafe driving. Well that's what we've got now. So in reality, all you are saying is that you think the limits are too low, and you want to drive faster.
GreenV8S said:
I would consider a 10% variation in speed as negligeable. 20% is noticeable, but not enough on its own to constitute a significant danger. 30% is very noticeable and enough to make a significant difference to safety.
I thought you were one of these that was demanding we take notice of 'appropriate speeds'. I thought you had previously suggested that you can't just say one speed is dangerous in itself. Yet in the 30mph zone, you are saying that 36mph is "not enough on its own to constitute a significant danger" but 39mph is "very noticeable and enough to make a significant difference to safety". Aren't you just proposing exactly what you claim to be so dead set against. A fixed speed limit, that takes no account of conditions or manner of driving. Haven't you commented in the past that driving innappropriately at 20mph is more dangerous than 40mph done safely. Yet here you are saying 36mph safe, 39mph unsafe.
GreenV8S said:
On the basis that the 85%ile speed is the speed that 85% of drivers feel is safe and sensible for typical conditions, I would draw a line at about 25%-30% above that speed and say that a competent driver at that speed would be well aware that they were significantly in excess of the speed limit, and that the speed was probably inappropriate for typical conditions.
I see. A Road Traffic Planner, in consultation with many official bodies, has decided that above the fixed limit is innapropriate. Its disgraceful, you cry. How can they claim that any one speed is "inappropriate for typical conditions". Yet you then go on to propose a fixed speed as being inappropriate.
GreenV8S said:
35 in a 30 limit - no big deal, easily done.
Especially if you are not concentrating.
GreenV8S said:
40 in a 30 limit - not something you are likely to do by accident and a bit excessive.
..a bit excessive..based on what exactly.
GreenV8S said:
85 on a motorway - no big deal, happens every day
100 on a motorway - you're asking for trouble and you know it
100 on a motorway - you're asking for trouble and you know it
Right, so you are now saying that one fixed speed (85mph) is okay in all circumstances, but another fixed speed (100mph) is definitely wrong in all circumstances.
GreenV8S said:
Remember that I'm talking about people being penalised purely on the basis of their speed, with no implication at all that they were driving dangerously or that their speed was excessive for the conditions. I would expect ordinary law abiding drivers who are making any attempt at all to comply with the speed limit, would exceed that threshold exceptionally rarely and would probably agree if caught doing it, that they were in the wrong. I would not say the same for people who have 1/4 of their license taken away for being 10%+2 over the limit in circumstances where they believe they were driving safely.
You say that you dont want someone to lose a 1/4 of their licence "for being 10%+2 over the limit in circumstances where they believe they were driving safely" (i.e. 35mph in a 30mph zone) yet in your comments above you claim that (and I quote) "I would draw a line at about 25%-30% above that speed and say that a competent driver at that speed would be well aware that they were significantly in excess of the speed limit, and that the speed was probably inappropriate for typical conditions". So that will be 37.5mph to 39mph. So 35mph okay, 37.5mph bad.
You either agree with enforcement based strictly on speed, or you don't. You can't have it both ways. How can you set your self up to tell everyone that down this particular street, 37.5mph is wrong, that the driver knew it, and it was probably inappropriate...but 35mph would have been okay. You are just doing what you supposedly purport to be so against.
This is really very simple. You want to drive faster than the limits, 'cos you disagree with them. Go do it then. Just stop this trying to rationalise it, by saying everyone else who sets limits is wrong, but that somehow your fixed limits are right.
[quote=Big Fat F'erThis is really very simple. You want to drive faster than the limits, 'cos you disagree with them. Go do it then. Just stop this trying to rationalise it, by saying everyone else who sets limits is wrong, but that somehow your fixed limits are right.[/quote]
I think at this point I can agree with you. Given that speeed limits of some kind will always be with us, your logic that is is, by definition, wrong to exceed them - by any amount and in any circumstances - is ineluctable. To do so is a personal choice and one takes the risk of being caught.
In a way I don't mind this since the hallmarks of good driving, including observation and matching speed to conditions, enable all but the downright malicious speed traps to be negotiated without penalty. Speed traps catch not just reckless drivers but those who are otherwise very law abiding but who do not concentrate hard enough or look ahead; i.e. who are not good drivers. The irony is that this regularly includes politicians, senior police officers and other "pillars of the community". So far (and how this feels like tempting fate!) it does not include me!
The fear, however, is that speeding is seen increasingly as revenue generation, rather than sensible road safety enforcement, and even observant drivers who choose to adjust speed to conditions in excess of limits, are at risk of being caught.
I think at this point I can agree with you. Given that speeed limits of some kind will always be with us, your logic that is is, by definition, wrong to exceed them - by any amount and in any circumstances - is ineluctable. To do so is a personal choice and one takes the risk of being caught.
In a way I don't mind this since the hallmarks of good driving, including observation and matching speed to conditions, enable all but the downright malicious speed traps to be negotiated without penalty. Speed traps catch not just reckless drivers but those who are otherwise very law abiding but who do not concentrate hard enough or look ahead; i.e. who are not good drivers. The irony is that this regularly includes politicians, senior police officers and other "pillars of the community". So far (and how this feels like tempting fate!) it does not include me!
The fear, however, is that speeding is seen increasingly as revenue generation, rather than sensible road safety enforcement, and even observant drivers who choose to adjust speed to conditions in excess of limits, are at risk of being caught.
gdaybruce said:
The fear, however, is that speeding is seen increasingly as revenue generation, rather than sensible road safety enforcement, and even observant drivers who choose to adjust speed to conditions in excess of limits, are at risk of being caught.
Just wait 'til our masters impose 24/7 satellite tracking upon us. So much for the good drivers who look ahead.
flemke said:
gdaybruce said:
The fear, however, is that speeding is seen increasingly as revenue generation, rather than sensible road safety enforcement, and even observant drivers who choose to adjust speed to conditions in excess of limits, are at risk of being caught.
Just wait 'til our masters impose 24/7 satellite tracking upon us. So much for the good drivers who look ahead.
Can't argue with that!
flemke said:
gdaybruce said:
The fear, however, is that speeding is seen increasingly as revenue generation, rather than sensible road safety enforcement, and even observant drivers who choose to adjust speed to conditions in excess of limits, are at risk of being caught.
Just wait 'til our masters impose 24/7 satellite tracking upon us. So much for the good drivers who look ahead.
Oh yes, permanent satellite tracking - to me that would be a nightmare scenario from the viewpoint of the enthusiastic and spirited driver, and I look forward to the emergence of some means of preventing it from being inflicted upon us - by whatever methods become available.
As for 'our masters' - well I look forward to the day when they are forced to recognise that they are not actually our masters at all. I may be wrong, but I have the feeling it is only a matter of time - preferably not too much time either.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
As for 'our masters' - well I look forward to the day when they are forced to recognise that they are not actually our masters at all. I may be wrong, but I have the feeling it is only a matter of time - preferably not too much time either.
Well, for as long as our species has existed, the most bestial males have sought to assert their authority over everyone else. In light of the thousands of years of this pattern, I'm sceptical that it's about to change anytime soon.
Hope that I'm wrong.
Traffic laws have to be laid down on the basis of the lowest common denominators, both in terms of the drivers, their vehicles and the surrounding environment. In reality, this ensues a situation whereupon a competant road user may progress safely, yet to the letter of the law, be in conflict with the authorities.
A much cited example would be the typical instance of a deserted 4am motorway, in clear and dry conditions, in a modern and well maintained car, driven by a competant and alert driver. At a speed of say, 90mph, it would be hard to claim that the obvious breaking of the law was to the detriment of safety to any person or their property. Even raising that to 120mph, depending on traffic flow, the black and white nature of the law would not be taking into account the circumstances.
Taking the other extreme, a pensioner with poor eyesight, driving a legal yet poorly maintained old car, may perfectly legally pass, at 28mph, children exiting a school yard on their way home. Despite being well within the limits laid down by the law, and within the bounds asked of a careful and competant driver, it's inherant (certainly in my opinion) that this act is more dangerous than my first, motorway based example.
The example above is simplistic (and perhaps a little cliched by now), yet it illustrates that a law, simply by virtue of it being a law, is not always infallible- often it's quite the contrary.
Take another example, a modern well maintained car, driven on the carraigeway, riding on tyres with a uniform tread depth of 1.2mm. It may well be, that in dry conditions, depending on the manufacture of the tyre, that these tyres would provide grip equal to or greater than the same tyre with a legal, 1.6mm depth of tread. Given the same low tread depth on a wet road, and the opposite may be the case. The law cannot be governed in this instance on something so fickle (especially in Britain) as the prevailing weather conditions, so it must be assumed that a tyre has to conform to tread depth for the worst conditions it may encounter. This does not mean that a law can contravine physics by assuming the tyre is naturally unsafe in all conditions; just that it isn't legal according to the letter of the law.
My overriding point from the examples above would be that it is foolish to suggest that something is wrong (in this instance determined by what is safe and morally correct) purely because it contravines a law; everything is a matter of aggravation and mitigation, even though the law may try to maintain a black and white split down the middle.
When you come to the issue of speeding and overtaking, the advice given by word of mouth instruction and that as written by various associations in statute is likely to differ, for obvious reasons. Whilst a competant, dare I say it, 'a'dvanced driver may feel it reasonable to break the speed limit during an overtaking manoevre, it would be politically unwise for an organisation to explicitly suggest that breaking the law was in the remit of it's followers. Would a firm of accountants fill it's brouchures with how it specialised in tax evasion(though ironically, this wonderful Labour government is trying to make them more or less do just that!)?
In my own humble opinion, the opportunity to overtake, and the likelyhood that I'll commit to the manoevre, depends on many different factors, though the actual speed I'm travlling at per se isn't necessarily the main one.
A much cited example would be the typical instance of a deserted 4am motorway, in clear and dry conditions, in a modern and well maintained car, driven by a competant and alert driver. At a speed of say, 90mph, it would be hard to claim that the obvious breaking of the law was to the detriment of safety to any person or their property. Even raising that to 120mph, depending on traffic flow, the black and white nature of the law would not be taking into account the circumstances.
Taking the other extreme, a pensioner with poor eyesight, driving a legal yet poorly maintained old car, may perfectly legally pass, at 28mph, children exiting a school yard on their way home. Despite being well within the limits laid down by the law, and within the bounds asked of a careful and competant driver, it's inherant (certainly in my opinion) that this act is more dangerous than my first, motorway based example.
The example above is simplistic (and perhaps a little cliched by now), yet it illustrates that a law, simply by virtue of it being a law, is not always infallible- often it's quite the contrary.
Take another example, a modern well maintained car, driven on the carraigeway, riding on tyres with a uniform tread depth of 1.2mm. It may well be, that in dry conditions, depending on the manufacture of the tyre, that these tyres would provide grip equal to or greater than the same tyre with a legal, 1.6mm depth of tread. Given the same low tread depth on a wet road, and the opposite may be the case. The law cannot be governed in this instance on something so fickle (especially in Britain) as the prevailing weather conditions, so it must be assumed that a tyre has to conform to tread depth for the worst conditions it may encounter. This does not mean that a law can contravine physics by assuming the tyre is naturally unsafe in all conditions; just that it isn't legal according to the letter of the law.
My overriding point from the examples above would be that it is foolish to suggest that something is wrong (in this instance determined by what is safe and morally correct) purely because it contravines a law; everything is a matter of aggravation and mitigation, even though the law may try to maintain a black and white split down the middle.
When you come to the issue of speeding and overtaking, the advice given by word of mouth instruction and that as written by various associations in statute is likely to differ, for obvious reasons. Whilst a competant, dare I say it, 'a'dvanced driver may feel it reasonable to break the speed limit during an overtaking manoevre, it would be politically unwise for an organisation to explicitly suggest that breaking the law was in the remit of it's followers. Would a firm of accountants fill it's brouchures with how it specialised in tax evasion(though ironically, this wonderful Labour government is trying to make them more or less do just that!)?
In my own humble opinion, the opportunity to overtake, and the likelyhood that I'll commit to the manoevre, depends on many different factors, though the actual speed I'm travlling at per se isn't necessarily the main one.
Big Fat F'er said:
Lots of stuff
That isn't what I'm saying at all.
I don't think that speed should be an absolute offense, and numerical speed alone should never be sufficient to determine whether somebody should be punished. Perhaps we agree there.
But given that speeding remains an absolute offense, my comments were about how strictly the speed limits should be enforced. My suggestion was to put the threshold for prosecution *purely on the basis of speed* outside the range of speeds that sensible and generally law abiding drivers will reach. People who are driving safely and sensibly and not straying far above the speed limit should not need to fear prosecution. (In my opinion driving safely and sensibly should be sufficient, but that's a different argument for another day.)
I'm not trying to rationalise being allowed to drive above the current limits. I'm saying that people should only be penalised based purely on absolute speed, if their absolute speed is significantly outside the speed range generally considered as appropriate. And the reason for that is I don't think that small changes in speed are important to road safety, but I think that having drivers concerned about being prosecuted due to small changes in speed is important.
GreenV8S said:
Big Fat F'er said:
Lots of stuff
That isn't what I'm saying at all.
I don't think that speed should be an absolute offense, and numerical speed alone should never be sufficient to determine whether somebody should be punished. Perhaps we agree there.
But given that speeding remains an absolute offense, my comments were about how strictly the speed limits should be enforced. My suggestion was to put the threshold for prosecution *purely on the basis of speed* outside the range of speeds that sensible and generally law abiding drivers will reach. People who are driving safely and sensibly and not straying far above the speed limit should not need to fear prosecution. (In my opinion driving safely and sensibly should be sufficient, but that's a different argument for another day.)
I'm not trying to rationalise being allowed to drive above the current limits. I'm saying that people should only be penalised based purely on absolute speed, if their absolute speed is significantly outside the speed range generally considered as appropriate. And the reason for that is I don't think that small changes in speed are important to road safety, but I think that having drivers concerned about being prosecuted due to small changes in speed is important.
The thing is, you either have a fixed limit, or you don't. There is no middle ground. The reason for this is that the terms 'significantly', inappropriate','excessive' etc, are all subjective. They are variable, vague and meaningless unless they are fixed.
You say above that "people should only be penalised based purely on absolute speed, if their absolute speed is significantly outside the speed range generally considered as appropriate". Lets say that you define that significant difference as (for example purposes only) 38mph in a 30mph zone. Right then, you have now introduced a new fixed limit of 38mph. The rules are exactly the same as before. Any variation above the fixed limit, regardles of whether it is dangerous or not, will result in prosecution. So the ONLY difference you are proposing is that you want to raise the limits.
You say that "I don't think that speed should be an absolute offense, and numerical speed alone should never be sufficient to determine whether somebody should be punished". You then say that "people should only be penalised based purely on absolute speed, if their absolute speed is significantly outside the speed range generally considered as appropriate". So you are saying two things, one is that speed alone SHOULDN'T be the basis for prosecution, but you also say speed alone SHOULD be the basis for prosecution.
What you are proposing is not only difficult to understand, it would also be almost impossible to enforce. Again, it's simple really. You either accept there will be a fixed limit, or you say no limits at all. You cannot have a limit, but then say you can go above that limit. Your sole argument is that you think the limits are too low. That is fair enough, but stop trying to claim that it is anything else. Once you accept that there will be a limit, then the choice is yours, based on your principles and attitudes alone. Do I obey the limit or not? I'm proposing that as an 'A'dvanced (or even 'a'dvanced) driver, you should obey the limits, and follow all other traffic regulations.
Re the comment from 7DB, fair point well made, but at least on here folk like Green and you and I (and others) can debate our differences without it being the usual "I want to go really fast but the Rozzers pick on me 'cos I'm a really good driver and life is so unfair to me" twaddle.
Green - shall we agree to disagree, and move on. If you're ever in this neck of the woods, keep it down man! Good talking with ya, and good luck with the cameras!!!
Edited by Big Fat F'er on Tuesday 13th June 12:36
Thread Summary for those that are getting bogged down.
BFF - You are wrong. Advanced driving involves breaking the speed limit, that is why it is called advanced
(Seriously)
Everyone else - You are wasting your time getting into semantics. The first four pages were great, now it is getting pedantic.
FWIW, IMHO , having driven for 15 years and only had two accidents, both over 7 years ago and broken the speed limit every day since I passed my test feel i am qualified to comment. Having recently had some advanced driver training from a Class 1 Police driver I can catagorically (sp) say that advanced driving involves breaking the speed limit where required.
End of
Cheers,
Steve.
BFF - You are wrong. Advanced driving involves breaking the speed limit, that is why it is called advanced
(Seriously) Everyone else - You are wasting your time getting into semantics. The first four pages were great, now it is getting pedantic.
FWIW, IMHO , having driven for 15 years and only had two accidents, both over 7 years ago and broken the speed limit every day since I passed my test feel i am qualified to comment. Having recently had some advanced driver training from a Class 1 Police driver I can catagorically (sp) say that advanced driving involves breaking the speed limit where required.
End of
Cheers,
Steve.
I'm still not making myself clear.
IMO speeding shouldn't be an absolute offense. It is, and it's likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
GIVEN THAT: we are faced with a situation where we have fixed limits, and enforcement based purely on the numerical speed relative to those limits. How the limits are enforced is a matter of policy.
For example, the government could instantly ban anyone caught exceeding the limit by the smallest margin for whatever reason, crush their car and charge them to dispose of the remains. That's not a policy I'd like to see, although I suspect that you could find people to support it if you looked hard enough.
Or they could have a sensible policy, perhaps along the lines I described, which intends to penalise the small minority of driver who drive excessively fast, while leaving the sensible majority of drivers free from fear of persecution. The grey area is not about the legal status of the speed limit, it is about how strictly that limit is enforced. The limit is there for a purpose (to improve road safety) and it should imo be enforced in the way that best achieves that, within acceptable constraints of cost and inconvenience to the general public. It is currently not enforced absolutely strictly, although it is already rather stricter than I want and seems to be getting stricter year by year.
IMO speeding shouldn't be an absolute offense. It is, and it's likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
GIVEN THAT: we are faced with a situation where we have fixed limits, and enforcement based purely on the numerical speed relative to those limits. How the limits are enforced is a matter of policy.
For example, the government could instantly ban anyone caught exceeding the limit by the smallest margin for whatever reason, crush their car and charge them to dispose of the remains. That's not a policy I'd like to see, although I suspect that you could find people to support it if you looked hard enough.
Or they could have a sensible policy, perhaps along the lines I described, which intends to penalise the small minority of driver who drive excessively fast, while leaving the sensible majority of drivers free from fear of persecution. The grey area is not about the legal status of the speed limit, it is about how strictly that limit is enforced. The limit is there for a purpose (to improve road safety) and it should imo be enforced in the way that best achieves that, within acceptable constraints of cost and inconvenience to the general public. It is currently not enforced absolutely strictly, although it is already rather stricter than I want and seems to be getting stricter year by year.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff