It's not about the money (yeah, right)!

[Engineer792]

vonhosen said:

Of course it's not exactly the same, because we didn't always have automated enforcement etc. But the fact remains that in the early 80''s people were being prosecuted for exceeding speed limits in what could be deemed 'relative safety', i.e. for no other reason than they exceeded the number on the stick & were outside the tolerance threshold of the officer viewing/dealing with it.
I've been driving all that time too, I'm no more concerned about speed enforcement for me in my personal driving/riding now than I was back then & that doesn't mean I'm some kind of Saint, just that the chances of me being caught exceeding the limit by a margin where I'm likely to end up getting prosecuted are pretty slim with all things considered.

It doesn't matter how long it's been going on for, or how insignificant an issue you perceive it to be, if something's based on a false premise then it's wrong.
And when the roads become populated with driverless cars, they will no longer be able to blame road deaths and injuries on speeding drivers.
But until that happens, many of the measures they're putting in place to 'improve road safety by slowing drivers down' could well be making things worse.

[Stickyfinger]

Staggering

3 x Points : Female : 16,333 .......Male: 685,849

[vonhosen]

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

Of course it's not exactly the same, because we didn't always have automated enforcement etc. But the fact remains that in the early 80''s people were being prosecuted for exceeding speed limits in what could be deemed 'relative safety', i.e. for no other reason than they exceeded the number on the stick & were outside the tolerance threshold of the officer viewing/dealing with it.
I've been driving all that time too, I'm no more concerned about speed enforcement for me in my personal driving/riding now than I was back then & that doesn't mean I'm some kind of Saint, just that the chances of me being caught exceeding the limit by a margin where I'm likely to end up getting prosecuted are pretty slim with all things considered.

It doesn't matter how long it's been going on for, or how insignificant an issue you perceive it to be, if something's based on a false premise then it's wrong.
And when the roads become populated with driverless cars, they will no longer be able to blame road deaths and injuries on speeding drivers.
But until that happens, many of the measures they're putting in place to 'improve road safety by slowing drivers down' could well be making things worse.

Speed limits are about a multitude of reasons, not a single premise.
They don't define a safe speed/dangerous speed, they are a simple regulatory control measure.
They are one facet/control measure, they are not the only.
It does matter how insignificant people perceive the issue to be, because until a significant proportion of people perceive it to be an issue of concern it's not likely to go how you desire it to.

[ashleyman]

vonhosen said:

Speed limits are about a multitude of reasons, not a single premise.
They don't define a safe speed/dangerous speed, they are a simple regulatory control measure.
They are one facet/control measure, they are not the only.
It does matter how insignificant people perceive the issue to be, because until a significant proportion of people perceive it to be an issue of concern it's not likely to go how you desire it to.

But speeding on the road is an absolute offence. There’s no defence for it. There’s no excuses. If you get caught. That’s it, you get penalised.

Imagine you’re on a motorway with a variable limit of 50, you’re travelling at 50. A lorry on your left goes to change lanes but there is a car to your right.

You have 3 options (excluding horn):
Brake and get hit
Continue and hope he’ll notice you if not get hit
Accelerate out of the danger zone, avoid crash, potential injury etc... but get 3 points.

What would you do?

[vonhosen]

ashleyman said:

vonhosen said:

Speed limits are about a multitude of reasons, not a single premise.
They don't define a safe speed/dangerous speed, they are a simple regulatory control measure.
They are one facet/control measure, they are not the only.
It does matter how insignificant people perceive the issue to be, because until a significant proportion of people perceive it to be an issue of concern it's not likely to go how you desire it to.

But speeding on the road is an absolute offence. There’s no defence for it. There’s no excuses. If you get caught. That’s it, you get penalised.

Imagine you’re on a motorway with a variable limit of 50, you’re travelling at 50. A lorry on your left goes to change lanes but there is a car to your right.

You have 3 options (excluding horn):
Brake and get hit
Continue and hope he’ll notice you if not get hit
Accelerate out of the danger zone, avoid crash, potential injury etc... but get 3 points.

What would you do?

There are a lot of absolute offences, it's part of life.
I deal with it as it comes. I haven't said I'm a never exceeding the limit saint, it's just that the current enforcement levels or policies don't cause me huge concern because I tend to moderate my behaviour in the face of it. It's not that there is zero risk to my licence (just as there is not zero risk in any driving), but I minimise it through behavioural choices (the where, when & how).

I've said I'd personally no speed limit applied for me. Urban, rural or motorway.
I've also said that I can understand why others wouldn't want that to be the case for me.
Speed limits are merely a compromise between the ability to get somewhere & a multitude of competing factors.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 25th October 23:22

[cmaguire]

Somewhat odd that as vehicles are becoming inherently safer and more capable that the speed limits just get slower.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

Somewhat odd that as vehicles are becoming inherently safer and more capable that the speed limits just get slower.

Vehicles aren't the problem, drivers are.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

Vehicles aren't the problem, drivers are.

Are you implying drivers now are less competent than they were say 25 years ago?

[Engineer792]

vonhosen said:

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

Of course it's not exactly the same, because we didn't always have automated enforcement etc. But the fact remains that in the early 80''s people were being prosecuted for exceeding speed limits in what could be deemed 'relative safety', i.e. for no other reason than they exceeded the number on the stick & were outside the tolerance threshold of the officer viewing/dealing with it.
I've been driving all that time too, I'm no more concerned about speed enforcement for me in my personal driving/riding now than I was back then & that doesn't mean I'm some kind of Saint, just that the chances of me being caught exceeding the limit by a margin where I'm likely to end up getting prosecuted are pretty slim with all things considered.

It doesn't matter how long it's been going on for, or how insignificant an issue you perceive it to be, if something's based on a false premise then it's wrong.
And when the roads become populated with driverless cars, they will no longer be able to blame road deaths and injuries on speeding drivers.
But until that happens, many of the measures they're putting in place to 'improve road safety by slowing drivers down' could well be making things worse.

Speed limits are about a multitude of reasons, not a single premise.
They don't define a safe speed/dangerous speed, they are a simple regulatory control measure.
They are one facet/control measure, they are not the only.
It does matter how insignificant people perceive the issue to be, because until a significant proportion of people perceive it to be an issue of concern it's not likely to go how you desire it to.

And it doesn't look like you took in anything I wrote there, and simply regurgitated the same stuff that you've been retreating to for years.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Vehicles aren't the problem, drivers are.

Are you implying drivers now are less competent than they were say 25 years ago?

Nope, just that the world they operate in is not exactly as it was 25 years ago.
But drivers were the problem 25 years ago & they still are today.

[vonhosen]

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

Of course it's not exactly the same, because we didn't always have automated enforcement etc. But the fact remains that in the early 80''s people were being prosecuted for exceeding speed limits in what could be deemed 'relative safety', i.e. for no other reason than they exceeded the number on the stick & were outside the tolerance threshold of the officer viewing/dealing with it.
I've been driving all that time too, I'm no more concerned about speed enforcement for me in my personal driving/riding now than I was back then & that doesn't mean I'm some kind of Saint, just that the chances of me being caught exceeding the limit by a margin where I'm likely to end up getting prosecuted are pretty slim with all things considered.

It doesn't matter how long it's been going on for, or how insignificant an issue you perceive it to be, if something's based on a false premise then it's wrong.
And when the roads become populated with driverless cars, they will no longer be able to blame road deaths and injuries on speeding drivers.
But until that happens, many of the measures they're putting in place to 'improve road safety by slowing drivers down' could well be making things worse.

Speed limits are about a multitude of reasons, not a single premise.
They don't define a safe speed/dangerous speed, they are a simple regulatory control measure.
They are one facet/control measure, they are not the only.
It does matter how insignificant people perceive the issue to be, because until a significant proportion of people perceive it to be an issue of concern it's not likely to go how you desire it to.

And it doesn't look like you took in anything I wrote there, and simply regurgitated the same stuff that you've been retreating to for years.

I'm sure you see what you want to see.

[ashleyman]

Looking at that FOI request posted earlier, how can you be a provisional license holder and have 26 points on it?

According to that spreadsheet 4.35% of the population are driving round with points on their license. That seems a lot which probably goes to show limits are unreasonable.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Vehicles aren't the problem, drivers are.

Are you implying drivers now are less competent than they were say 25 years ago?

Nope, just that the world they operate in is not exactly as it was 25 years ago.
But drivers were the problem 25 years ago & they still are today.

So if the drivers are the problem now, and were also the problem before now, then why are the limits only being lowered now?

The world they operate in? How does that work then? The tools they are using are far more capable, so it is fair to assume that makes driving easier than before. Yet the reduction in limits would suggest otherwise. What am I missing?

[Engineer792]

vonhosen said:

I'm sure you see what you want to see.

As I'm sure you do.
And time will tell who's right.
But one of us isn't simply content to sit around and wait.

[Davidonly]

vonhosen said:

ashleyman said:

vonhosen said:

Speed limits are about a multitude of reasons, not a single premise.
They don't define a safe speed/dangerous speed, they are a simple regulatory control measure.
They are one facet/control measure, they are not the only.
It does matter how insignificant people perceive the issue to be, because until a significant proportion of people perceive it to be an issue of concern it's not likely to go how you desire it to.

But speeding on the road is an absolute offence. There’s no defence for it. There’s no excuses. If you get caught. That’s it, you get penalised.

Imagine you’re on a motorway with a variable limit of 50, you’re travelling at 50. A lorry on your left goes to change lanes but there is a car to your right.

You have 3 options (excluding horn):
Brake and get hit
Continue and hope he’ll notice you if not get hit
Accelerate out of the danger zone, avoid crash, potential injury etc... but get 3 points.

What would you do?

There are a lot of absolute offences, it's part of life.
I deal with it as it comes. I haven't said I'm a never exceeding the limit saint, it's just that the current enforcement levels or policies don't cause me huge concern because I tend to moderate my behaviour in the face of it. It's not that there is zero risk to my licence (just as there is not zero risk in any driving), but I minimise it through behavioural choices (the where, when & how).

I've said I'd personally no speed limit applied for me. Urban, rural or motorway.
I've also said that I can understand why others wouldn't want that to be the case for me.
Speed limits are merely a compromise between the ability to get somewhere & a multitude of competing factors.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 25th October 23:22

As ever Vonhosen speaks the truth HOWEVER: Speed enforcement by speed camera was introduced and escalated and has apparent 'public acceptance' BECAUSE of the associated risk of 'speeding'. Hence the remaining view from most people that these mobile scam vans are used at accident black spots. They are not. It's not honest in that way amongst MANY other issues.

[spaximus]

I understand everything that Von has said on here but there is no doubt that it is now about the money, a side consequence is that people might get points or banned.

When I was 17 many years ago I got caught speeding by a good old fashioned copper. He bked me and explained why I was an idiot and that the endorsement would do me good ( I disagreed but understood). Telling family what had happened almost to a one they all felt I was a dangerous lunatic as only dangerous lunatics got endorsements. The insurance agreed with that as well the following year.

Fast forward to now and there are hardly any people who do not have or have had some points. Conversation has now swung to this not being about safety to being about cash, so the message has been lost and only the usual suspects keep trotting out it is a bout road safety. That is no longer believable to a lot of the public most who are not petrol heads just ordinary people

[Crackie]

SantaBarbara said:

Actually it is about Reducing fatalities and casualties.

Is that your opinion or do you have some facts to back that up ?

[Crackie]

ChocolateFrog said:

North Yorkshire seems particularly bad, don't know how many vans they have but swear I've passed 3 in one journey. The A64 being popular.

I live in North Yorkshire so I visit the police website fairly often to see where they'll be putting the cameras. The police site lead me to read more about a lady called Julia Mulligan.

Julia Mulligan, has been Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire and she appears to have SantaBarbara's blind faith in speed enforcement being all about reducing fatalities and serious injuries.

The stats in the link below show there has been no improvement whatsoever in KSI accidents in North Yorkshire since cameras were introduced; quite to opposite in fact. Julia Mulligan has a plan though. 1 van in 2011, 3 vans in 2013, 6 vans in 2015, 12 vans in 2017. They aren't working though https://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/content/uplo... ( data and graphs on page six )

Its not difficult to understand why the people I speak with about driving / road safety policy in North Yorkshire are now variously cynical, frustrated and pi55ed off when Police Commissioner's own data doesn't support the decisions she makes.

If there was evidence that they were effective at reducing the numbers of KSI incidents then I'm sure they would have backing from the majority.......... if you look at he data, since cameras were introduced, they are making the roads more dangerous not safer.

In the report Julia concludes,
"This report explains how safety camera vans were used in North Yorkshire in 2014/15 and what contribution they made to enforcing the laws of the road and reducing speed-related death and serious injury. I believe that road safety is a major concern for the county and that increased enforcement will have a positive effect. For that reason, I believe safety camera vans play a vital role in keeping our roads safer."

No doubt Julia, contrary to the evidence shown in her own report, will be ploughing on regardless and North Yorkshire can look forward to 24 vans in April 2019 and 48 in April 2021.........they are self supporting financially and they make enough cash to double their number every two years.

EDIT.
I've just read the report again.....Julia says at one point that excess speed was probably a factor in many of the incidents in North Yorkshire but admits there is no evidence to prove this. Surely policy should be driven by analysis of facts rather than a misguded Police Commissioner's blind assumptions.......

Edited by Crackie on Thursday 26th October 10:49

[witko999]

I think that figures showing how many people have been on a speed awareness course would be far more telling than the points alone. It will be far, far higher. When 10%+ (at a guess) of drivers are getting 'caught' it's not their behaviour that needs changing, it's the law.

It amazes me that people continue to defend the proliferation of speed cameras and petty enforcement. My own view is that anyone with moderate intelligence can see it has very little (or no) positive effect on safety and is a highly corrupt industry and practice. There are no other areas in my life where it is so easy to fall foul of the law. If my car speedometer stops working, I am still capable of driving completely safely to my destination, yet within a one hour journey I could easily pick up enough points to be banned from driving.

[cmaguire]

witko999 said:

I think that figures showing how many people have been on a speed awareness course would be far more telling than the points alone. It will be far, far higher. When 10%+ (at a guess) of drivers are getting 'caught' it's not their behaviour that needs changing, it's the law.

It amazes me that people continue to defend the proliferation of speed cameras and petty enforcement. My own view is that anyone with moderate intelligence can see it has very little (or no) positive effect on safety and is a highly corrupt industry and practice. There are no other areas in my life where it is so easy to fall foul of the law. If my car speedometer stops working, I am still capable of driving completely safely to my destination, yet within a one hour journey I could easily pick up enough points to be banned from driving.

Your last sentence illustrates the stupidy of the current mentality the authorities have towards speed in that, although unlikely, it actually could happen.