Discussion
turbobloke said:
In this case with it being so much over the speed limit isn't the police officer really obliged to pull you over and ticket you? I mean he can't really do anything else can he? 
I agree. Although he is 24mph over the limit, we should remember that the ratio of over the limit is almost identical to doing 40 in a 30 limit, something which psychologically doesnt sound half as bad!
Now, this 40 in a 30 is as safe as the conditions. For example if this 30 is a newly reduced extra-urban dual carriageway (probably in North Wales
) Then most likely 40 is not really unsafe at all. Then again if the 30 limit is in a residential area then 40 may be not safe at all, which brings us back to the point: The view of our speed and its appropriateness should be relative to the conditions. On the motorway there are no pedestrians, you can set your own stopping distance and almost always you can have an unobstructed view over a large distace. However, as the speed limits increase and thus the level of risk decreases, the magistrates guidelines actually give *less* percentage over the limit to start increasing punishments.
For example, 92 in perfect conditions on the motorway is 31% over the limit. The magistrates guidelines show that for this offence can be dealt with by 5 points, or 6 if you are me and in North Wales!
However, 31% over the limit in a residential 30mph limit will give 39mph which even if the accused was to turn down the 3 point fixed penalty, this would also be the maximum penalty allowed.
I would hazard a guess that from the two examples, the 31% over the limit on a motorway in good conditions and good driving has very little or no increased risk than travelling at 70. However, the same could not be said for the 31% over the limit in a residential 30 zone.
If the controls are speed really revolve around our safety and risk, why are the punishments not also set like this?
>> Edited by justinp1 on Monday 24th April 12:31
J1mmyD said:
Vonhosen ... I have absolutely no problem with the police dealing with this type of driving. I've no problem with the police pulling a driver for 'excessive speed'. I have no problem with the police in general.
What I do have a problem with is the fact that it seems the few police we have left are being stretched further and replaced by cameras dealing only with speeding offences and Traffic Officers picking up the pieces of vehicles for whatever reason they're in pieces.
As I said above, the officer involved was 'nice' about it. Don't expect motorists to enjoy being fined, but we do appreciate a 'fair cop'.
If you drive along in a garish volvo with blue lights all over it (even if you HIDE in a garish volvo with blue lights all over it) and you catch me infringing the speed regulations, that's fine - sort of.
But while we have to cope with cameras hiding in laybys, behind corners and on bridges rather than investment in our Services who's going to be there to stop the pr*ck on the M1 who did a good half mile on the hard shoulder to get 30 yards ahead of traffic then trying the same trick a few more miles down the road? He was only doing 70 ... so that can't have been dangerous.
The worst thing I see on the road isn't speeding, but DANGEROUS driving. Sometimes that dangerous driving has an element of excessive speed (but the thing is, what I consider excessive speed might not be above the speed limit).
Don't think that I'm having a go at you, or anyone else. It's Sunday ... I'm quitting smoking (again) and I need to rant. This seemed as good a place as any.
Jimmy - no disrespect but I've read through Von's posting here and he didn't once mention speed cameras. Aren't we veering a little off-topic here?
JJ
fluffnik said:
Can it possibly be right to criminalise behaviour which is "courteous and safe"?
Ask those who are prosecuted for carrying a knife which is required for their job. Or those who simply go somewhere they've been banned from (ASBO) and are automatically in line for a jail sentence. "Courteous and safe" are no longer relevant.
Peter Ward said:
Ask those who are prosecuted for carrying a knife which is required for their job.
Sorry to side track for a minute.
I cannot remember ever reading about anyone being done for this.
I`m a law-abiding citizen and carry a Leatherman charge ti, are you saying there is a possibility that i could be done?
Many years ago I was in court for travelling at an alleged 102mph (in a Cortina 1.6!!!)on the M5. It was at 5.30am on a clear summer day with virtually no traffic and a dry road. When passing sentence the magistrate said, "This speed would be very dangerous if the motorway had been busy and it was raining heavily". So he made the assumation that I would drive at that speed in entirely different conditions. On what evidence?
I have no complaint regarding being found guilty of breaking the 70mph speed limit, but object to the assumation that I would drive dangerously in entirely different circumstances.
Has been said many times - speeding is an absolute offence. The police apply the law as it stands.
Incidentally the rated top speed of that model of Cortina 1.6 was 89mph. 103mph was 150revs over max. revs.
>> Edited by Philbes on Monday 24th April 15:25
>> Edited by Philbes on Monday 24th April 15:27
I have no complaint regarding being found guilty of breaking the 70mph speed limit, but object to the assumation that I would drive dangerously in entirely different circumstances.
Has been said many times - speeding is an absolute offence. The police apply the law as it stands.
Incidentally the rated top speed of that model of Cortina 1.6 was 89mph. 103mph was 150revs over max. revs.
>> Edited by Philbes on Monday 24th April 15:25
>> Edited by Philbes on Monday 24th April 15:27
Well there's a choice here...
and
So it's a choice between an informed road safety expert approach and a pompous patronising tyrant approach. And the one which our wonderful authorities choose is of course the twonk.
A magistrate said:
This speed would be very dangerous if the motorway had been busy and it was raining heavily
and
J J Leeming in Road Accidents - Prevent or Punish said:
To punish a motorist because what he was doing might be a danger in an hour's, or a week's, or a month's time — according to circumstances — but not at the time it was done, is a monstrous tyranny
So it's a choice between an informed road safety expert approach and a pompous patronising tyrant approach. And the one which our wonderful authorities choose is of course the twonk.
Lets not forget that discretion is down to the officer in question and not an automatic guarantee of being let off. It may have been that this particular officer generally disapproves of people going this fast, or he maybe didnt like some other aspect of this particular case, and thats entirely his prerogative.
It also sounds to me as though this TrafPol has already shown some leniency by issuing a ticket for 94 when it might well have been higher that that, as SM has already said he had been going faster than that and tinman has pointed out that 95+ equals a court appearance.
We shouldn't assume that TrafPol will always let us off just because we want them to, although at least theres a chance they can be reasoned with, unlike the mindless scammers in their poxy little vans hidden out of sight.
Unfortunately the current climate appears to be one of cracking down on anyone who exceeds the limit regardless of the appropriateness of the speed and the conditions, hence the proliferation of scammers on bridges making easy money.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if any of us breaks the limit by a significant margin we should be prepared to accept the penalties imposed, whether or not we agree with the limits or the method of enforcement (BTW, I dont, on both counts).
One thing I have noticed a lot in the last year or so is how much slower people seem to be going, especially on dual carriageways and motorways, so regardless of the rights or wrongs it does appear that the policy is having some sort of effect whether or not we agree with the reasoning behind it.
It also sounds to me as though this TrafPol has already shown some leniency by issuing a ticket for 94 when it might well have been higher that that, as SM has already said he had been going faster than that and tinman has pointed out that 95+ equals a court appearance.
We shouldn't assume that TrafPol will always let us off just because we want them to, although at least theres a chance they can be reasoned with, unlike the mindless scammers in their poxy little vans hidden out of sight.
Unfortunately the current climate appears to be one of cracking down on anyone who exceeds the limit regardless of the appropriateness of the speed and the conditions, hence the proliferation of scammers on bridges making easy money.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if any of us breaks the limit by a significant margin we should be prepared to accept the penalties imposed, whether or not we agree with the limits or the method of enforcement (BTW, I dont, on both counts).
One thing I have noticed a lot in the last year or so is how much slower people seem to be going, especially on dual carriageways and motorways, so regardless of the rights or wrongs it does appear that the policy is having some sort of effect whether or not we agree with the reasoning behind it.
njwc said:On single carriageway roads yes, motorways not so sure. However, what is the desired effect and what is the reasoning behind it? Isn't the desired effect to reduce the death toll on our roads? Isn't the reasoning 'speed kills'? Then there's a big problem.
One thing I have noticed a lot in the last year or so is how much slower people seem to be going, especially on dual carriageways and motorways, so regardless of the rights or wrongs it does appear that the policy is having some sort of effect whether or not we agree with the reasoning behind it.
Slowing people down is only going to have the 'desired effect' if the road death toll drops as a result, but it's not dropping it's been more or less constant since the arrival of automated speed enforcement and the useless GATSO about ten years ago. Note, this is purposely avoiding the malleable and phoney 'KSI' statistic where almost the entire drop is in 'SI' which can drop if hospital beds are unavailable due to NHS shortages and people cannot be kept in for observation and get sent home. That's not safer but it would reduce the KSI statistic. It would also drop if a form is filled in 'appropriately' (inaccurately) by a propagandised public servant.
Going slower is pointless - it isn't making the roads safer, in fact the system effects of our current road safety policy are making the roads more dangerous as they fail to address the actual causes of accidents. At about 4% speeding isn't one of them.
So we don't really need grudging acceptance, we need continuous firm rebuttals of the spin and statistical chicanery, and a return of our road safety policy and roads policing to the tried and tested methods of the pre-GATSO era that gave this country the safest roads in the world.
turbobloke said:Being a Norfolk boy I cant comment on motorways as we dont have any and I dont travel out of the county on a regular basis
On single carriageway roads yes, motorways not so sure
, but traffic on the A11 dual carriageway seems noticably slower now than it was a year ago. I agree with everything else that you've said, the whole policy is misguided, however it does appear to me that people are starting to comply with it. Nobody wants points on their licence and with the increasing ease of getting them its not suprising that people are looking at their speedos more and more.
fluffnik said:
Some day in this country we might get a realistic NSL, but then where will the holier than thou brigade shine their lights ?
There is only one reasonable NSL.
No Speed Limit
I'd love to see de-restricted motorways as per Germany, but i'd settle for 90-100 with variable limits in bad weather. I can make pretty decent progress at that speed....and do so, frequently
Yugguy said:
In this case with it being so much over the speed limit isn't the police officer really obliged to pull you over and ticket you? I mean he can't really do anything else can he?
He could resign.
...or take a tea break.
The problem is the bad law which criminalises "courteous and safe" behavior; I certainly could not enforce such a law in good conscience.
Peter Ward said:
"Courteous and safe" are no longer relevant.
Well, they should be.
...more so than almost anything else.
If the letter of the law is enforced when doing so does not achieve, nor aid, the purpose or spirit of the law, that is an offence to justice and opressive.
Write to your MP, put them on notice.
supermono said:
The idea of preventative legislation is that it exercises control over behaviour before it presents a danger. Better to prevent than deal with the consequences afterwards.
Who's suggesting that my behaviour is going to soon present a danger? Surely the logical extrapolation of your argument is that everyone about to get in a car should be stopped before they drive off so as to "exercise control over behaviour before it presents a danger"? After all every accident on the roads today started by someone getting into a car.
Surely if you follow somebody for about 10 miles and observe them driving reasonably for the conditions at about 1/2 the potential speed they could have been doing (94 vs 190) there's plenty of evidence there to suggest that control is already being exercised by the driver?
It sounds very police state to start taking into account what someone they might do rather than what they've done...
SM
Yes there is a risk in any driving & society has set limits to the risk it is prepared to accept where speed is concerned.
There is increased risk associated with greater differentials that you create with higher speed. We don't know how well you handle that extra speed or the performance hit that it may have on your driving processes. We have no tiered licencing system & as such you have not been licenced or tested as competent to do that, as there is no standard for it, even if you believe that you can handle it safely. It is society's wish that people don't have free reign to choose what speed they think is safe beyond our limits & you fell foul of society's desire to exert that control. You knew it existed & decided to ignore it, if your margin had been smaller in all likelyhood the officers would have cut you some slack, but the level of contempt you displayed for the limit resulted in a prosecution & prosecution is always possible where you do that.
fluffnik said:
"Courteous and safe" are no longer relevant.
Well, they should be.
...more so than almost anything else.
If the letter of the law is enforced when doing so does not achieve, nor aid, the purpose or spirit of the law, that is an offence to justice and opressive.
Write to your MP, put them on notice.
But the letter of the law isn't enforced, cameras tend to give you 10%+2mph & officers maybe more, maybe less, dpendent on circumstances that they observe at the time. Where you show complete disregard for the limit though, expect prosecution safe or not.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Monday 24th April 22:37
vonhosen said:We've been here before vh. Society has NOT set limits to any risk, because nobody has asked it. Where and when it gets talked at, the listening bit that should follow is done equally inadequately, and those affected are often not included.
Yes there is a risk in any driving & society has set limits to the risk it is prepared to accept where speed is concerned.
The outcomes of any partial and ineffective consultation are most often ignored anyway. Police objections included. The result is that a narrow coterie of uninformed politically correct busybodies are now setting limits, as well as revising those that were arbitrarily introduced in the first place. The vast majority of 'society' are not consulted in any meaningful way.
A lot of speed limits are now rightly in disrepute because of all this. Criteria used relate to political correctness not risk or safety. So this post could just have said 'pull the other one', but whatever.
turbobloke said:
Yes there is a risk in any driving & society has set limits to the risk it is prepared to accept where speed is concerned.
The outcomes of any partial and ineffective consultation are most often ignored anyway. Police objections included. The result is that a narrow coterie of uninformed politically correct busybodies are now setting limits, as well as revising those that were arbitrarily introduced in the first place. The vast majority of 'society' are not consulted in any meaningful way.
A lot of speed limits are now rightly in disrepute because of all this. Criteria used relate to political correctness not risk or safety. So this post could just have said 'pull the other one', but whatever.
Society is listened to. You ask for higher limits, brake ask for lower limits & the elected representatives of both of you impose and retain limits in the name of you both (which they were democratically elected to do so.) Either or both of you can decide who you give your vote for if your current elected representative doesn't adequately represent you on issues you believe are important.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Monday 24th April 22:42
vonhosen said:No that's not right vh - you must know it's not right.
Society is listened to.
Society can't make up it's mind what it wants with any uniformity, so that will leave the elected representatives to decide.
The procedure is that uninformed busybodies propose a (far too slow) limit or a reduction in a limit that's already archaic and too slow. EVERYBODY objects, including the police. Not 'a balance of opinion' but an avalanche of objections. These are ignored and the muppets just carry on with their stupidity.
Not long back...Glos. More recently...Oxon. And everywhere else.
Results are farcical - and downright culpable. When Suffolk introduced between 400 and 500 new lower limits a few years back, against objections that included the police as well as locals and the ABD, fataltities rose in the County for five years in a row afterwards, where previously there had been a steady reduction for much longer. I can't tell you the latest evolution of this cretinism as the County must have got too embarrassed as the trend is no longer posted on their website. Maybe I can find the data.
This is the County where the District Coroner formally held, at inquest into road deaths, that the lower limits were contributory factors (DC Bill Walrond).
What a joke. Except that in Suffolk lives have been lost. Across the country lives have been lost.
Do post up some more stuff as it's quite therapeutic to knock seven shades of 5hit out of it. Nothing personal.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff