New Speeding Penalties Proposed
Discussion
It seems that our government is proposing new penalties for speeding and is asking for responses from the public.
So lets respond
www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/ddf/spk/0409speedconsultation.doc
So lets respond
www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/ddf/spk/0409speedconsultation.doc
Can anyone explain the logic in the final table of that document?It seems you can exceed the 30mph limit by 30% and still only get a 2pts £40 fine yet on the safer motorways you can only exceed the limit by 18.5%.I thought the 30 limit was for pedestrian safety?I'm probably not making my point very well but hope you get the gist of it.
>> Edited by esselte on Tuesday 12th October 09:51
>> Edited by esselte on Tuesday 12th October 09:51
And you may notice that the table of suggested new penalty speeds does not show a lower speed for enforcement so at first glance it looks favourable compared to the table of current ACPO guideline speeds.
Do you think that the Government want to penalise all excess speed, e.g, 31mph ?
Also, notice that you will receive 6 points for 94mph on a motorway whereas currently you will get 3 points for any speed up to 96mph.
This looks like typical politicians spin, hiding the real objective of punishing as many drivers as possible whilst pretending that the rules are being relaxed for the benefit of the motorist.
Unfortunately, there are too many (most people it seems) idiots that cannot (or will not) analyse what they are told and therefore take things at face value.
Do you think that the Government want to penalise all excess speed, e.g, 31mph ?
Also, notice that you will receive 6 points for 94mph on a motorway whereas currently you will get 3 points for any speed up to 96mph.
This looks like typical politicians spin, hiding the real objective of punishing as many drivers as possible whilst pretending that the rules are being relaxed for the benefit of the motorist.
Unfortunately, there are too many (most people it seems) idiots that cannot (or will not) analyse what they are told and therefore take things at face value.
esselte said:
Can anyone explain the logic in the final table of that document?It seems you can exceed the 30mph limit by 30% and still only get a 2pts £40 fine yet on the safer motorways you can only exceed the limit by 18.5%.I thought the 30 limit was for pedestrian safety?I'm probably not making my point very well but hope you get the gist of it.
>> Edited by esselte on Tuesday 12th October 09:51
I do and I agree completely. This graduated penalty system is a sop to numptys who can't mind their speed in built up areas. The 45mph club!
If anything I would leave the system as it is...and introduce less serious penalties for high speed on the motorway...and increase the motorway limit anyway!
esselte said:
Can anyone explain the logic in the final table of that document?It seems you can exceed the 30mph limit by 30% and still only get a 2pts £40 fine yet on the safer motorways you can only exceed the limit by 18.5%.I thought the 30 limit was for pedestrian safety?I'm probably not making my point very well but hope you get the gist of it.
Already mailed the address in the doc with somthing along those lines.
document said:
16. Effective enforcement is also important, including the safety camera programme, where the independent review carried out by University College London and PA Consulting Group and published on 15 June 2004 concluded that ........
they are playing with words. If I remember correctly, the PA Consulting group are not exactly independent....found an interesting link....
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds02/text/21029w04.htm
govnt website said:
Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
What role PA Consulting play in monitoring the installation of speed cameras under the new netting off procedure.[HL6072]
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston:
PA Consulting advises the Safety Camera Project Board in all aspects of the netting off scheme. Operational cases, including camera deployment strategy, must be submitted to and approved by the Safety Camera Project Board.
Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much PA Consulting is being paid for its work in connection with the netting off procedure for speed cameras; and whether the award was made by competitive tender.[HL6073]
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston:
As a result of competitive tender, PA Consulting is currently engaged on a contract of £1,169,450 (excluding VAT) for work associated with netting off in England and Wales. This is funded from the DfT road safety research budget as part of monitoring the road safety effects of speed and traffic light enforcement cameras.
As for UCL contributing to the study: how many students do you know who commute to their lectures everyday? It is my experience that those who drive infrequently have the greatest fear of driving, and therefore are the most ignorant and intolerant. They are not in the best position to comment.
>> Edited by supraman2954 on Tuesday 12th October 12:09
lunarscope said:
And you may notice that the table of suggested new penalty speeds does not show a lower speed for enforcement so at first glance it looks favourable compared to the table of current ACPO guideline speeds.
Do you think that the Government want to penalise all excess speed, e.g, 31mph ?
Also, notice that you will receive 6 points for 94mph on a motorway whereas currently you will get 3 points for any speed up to 96mph.
This looks like typical politicians spin, hiding the real objective of punishing as many drivers as possible whilst pretending that the rules are being relaxed for the benefit of the motorist.
Unfortunately, there are too many (most people it seems) idiots that cannot (or will not) analyse what they are told and therefore take things at face value.
I brought to attention some tiem ago a report in the Telegraph which confirmed the lower speed would be 1 mph over the limit. Nicked........
They're slipping in an interesting new term here: "excessive speeding": a little bit of speeding is perhaps OK; what really exercises the public is "excessive speeding".
But of course the public is exercised. It's such a leading question: "Do you oppose excessive Xing?"
The link certainly suggests that HMG considers the main danger on our roads is speed. Going by recent publicity, you might even get the dismal impression that they think enforcing speed limits is the ONLY thing they can do that has any chance of affecting road safety.
Which has to be rubbish.
Where are the well-publicised efforts to maintain smooth traffic flow, to redesign dangerous crossings and junctions, and to phase traffic lights with regard to safety and convenience?
Is there a list of Engineered Traffic Hazards at Pistonheads?
E.g. (if I'm getting boring, sorry, more interesting posts by other people should be along shortly) there is a murderously phased set of traffic lights at the T-junction made by Port Dundas road and the A804, in Glasgow (Multipmap/OS grid ref NS589663).
I've seen three accidents here, one of which looked fatal.
Here is what happens: traffic coming off the M8 meets a set of traffic lights at the bottom of the long exit slip road (A879). However, even if you catch a brand new green here, you'll still get red at the A804 T... unless you floor it and make 45 in under 5 seconds.
Predictably, loons learn to do this. You get packs of them flooring it, making at least amber at the T. But sometimes, there's a slightly slower, resentful-looking one at the back of the pack. He gets red and shoots it. By this time, unfortunately, someone else is already flooring it out of Port Dundas Road. Crunch. Very nasty side impact to the driver's door.
It's a slightly tricky phasing problem, but keeping all lights a red on the T for three seconds after the through phase, and phasing the lights at the end of A879 slip so that green plus sensible acceleration to 30 will catch green at the T, would I think, cut accidents and even save lives.
The present phasing is punitive. When you punish people pointlessly, it's slightly predictable that some of them will go on to punish other people in turn.
I haven't made an official complaint about this because that might only encourage speed or traffic-light cameras. While these might make some difference, they wouldn't deter unregistered drivers who would continue to use the site as an exciting starting-grid substitute. Phasing the lights suitably, on the other hand, would help these drivers remain invisible to the normal motoring public.
>> Edited by gute_fahrt on Tuesday 12th October 23:19
>> Edited by gute_fahrt on Wednesday 13th October 00:23
But of course the public is exercised. It's such a leading question: "Do you oppose excessive Xing?"
The link certainly suggests that HMG considers the main danger on our roads is speed. Going by recent publicity, you might even get the dismal impression that they think enforcing speed limits is the ONLY thing they can do that has any chance of affecting road safety.
Which has to be rubbish.
Where are the well-publicised efforts to maintain smooth traffic flow, to redesign dangerous crossings and junctions, and to phase traffic lights with regard to safety and convenience?
Is there a list of Engineered Traffic Hazards at Pistonheads?
E.g. (if I'm getting boring, sorry, more interesting posts by other people should be along shortly) there is a murderously phased set of traffic lights at the T-junction made by Port Dundas road and the A804, in Glasgow (Multipmap/OS grid ref NS589663).
I've seen three accidents here, one of which looked fatal.
Here is what happens: traffic coming off the M8 meets a set of traffic lights at the bottom of the long exit slip road (A879). However, even if you catch a brand new green here, you'll still get red at the A804 T... unless you floor it and make 45 in under 5 seconds.
Predictably, loons learn to do this. You get packs of them flooring it, making at least amber at the T. But sometimes, there's a slightly slower, resentful-looking one at the back of the pack. He gets red and shoots it. By this time, unfortunately, someone else is already flooring it out of Port Dundas Road. Crunch. Very nasty side impact to the driver's door.
It's a slightly tricky phasing problem, but keeping all lights a red on the T for three seconds after the through phase, and phasing the lights at the end of A879 slip so that green plus sensible acceleration to 30 will catch green at the T, would I think, cut accidents and even save lives.
The present phasing is punitive. When you punish people pointlessly, it's slightly predictable that some of them will go on to punish other people in turn.
I haven't made an official complaint about this because that might only encourage speed or traffic-light cameras. While these might make some difference, they wouldn't deter unregistered drivers who would continue to use the site as an exciting starting-grid substitute. Phasing the lights suitably, on the other hand, would help these drivers remain invisible to the normal motoring public.
>> Edited by gute_fahrt on Tuesday 12th October 23:19
>> Edited by gute_fahrt on Wednesday 13th October 00:23
gute_fahrt said:
(if I'm getting boring, sorry, more interesting posts by other people should be along shortly)
No, not boring at all old chap!You make a lot of good points. Don't think that the term: "excessive speeding" is new though, in fact it's the basis of OUR arguement with authority. At one time outside built-up area's in this country there were no speed limits outside towns, and if I remember correctly in France it continued for much longer (in built-up area's as well!- perhaps someone could give the dates?). This gave the Police the "discretion" as to whether the driver was indulging in "excessive speed or not, or! you might say: was their speed resonable in the circumstances?." This I believe is the basis for "our" arguement, a advisory speed limit with "wiggle room" (new conservative term) for conditions prevailing able to be challenged by the Police. (Dons tin hat-ducks head, waits for flack!)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff