Zero tolerance proposals for UK roads...
Discussion
I read in a classic car magazine (can't remember which one) that the Highways Agency were going to trial speed limits and other safety information - weather & the like - being sent direct to cars.
This article sets out the relevant points
https://www.ageas.co.uk/solved/road-safety/the-end...
We have just picked up a new MINI (most cars do something similar) that has an inbuilt phone link that communicates, to MINI, the location in event of a crash / breakdown etc.
Once 'all' cars are fitted with such a phone/gps system the logical conclusion is, of course, for 'the authorities' to actually limit the speed and indeed driving styles of all vehicles at all times.
You are driving along a 30mph road at 30. When you enter a school zone you are slowed to (max) 20. Dual carriageway 60, divided dual carriageway 70. You wouldn't be able to cross white lines or accelerate hard (or maybe you'd get a fine if you did). If it were foggy, speed limits for all vehicles would automatically reduce. A police chase would simply involve a police car entering the reg number of a car (or phone/gps link) and 'switching it off'.
Doesn't matter how hard you press the accelerator the speed will be automatically limited to the one designated by 'the authorities' (for your - and other road users - benefit).
We're car bores here on PH. But is the writing on the wall for all us petrolheads: The technology already exists. So for society will it's use be a BIG BENEFIT or just BIG BROTHER?
This article sets out the relevant points
https://www.ageas.co.uk/solved/road-safety/the-end...
We have just picked up a new MINI (most cars do something similar) that has an inbuilt phone link that communicates, to MINI, the location in event of a crash / breakdown etc.
Once 'all' cars are fitted with such a phone/gps system the logical conclusion is, of course, for 'the authorities' to actually limit the speed and indeed driving styles of all vehicles at all times.
You are driving along a 30mph road at 30. When you enter a school zone you are slowed to (max) 20. Dual carriageway 60, divided dual carriageway 70. You wouldn't be able to cross white lines or accelerate hard (or maybe you'd get a fine if you did). If it were foggy, speed limits for all vehicles would automatically reduce. A police chase would simply involve a police car entering the reg number of a car (or phone/gps link) and 'switching it off'.
Doesn't matter how hard you press the accelerator the speed will be automatically limited to the one designated by 'the authorities' (for your - and other road users - benefit).
We're car bores here on PH. But is the writing on the wall for all us petrolheads: The technology already exists. So for society will it's use be a BIG BENEFIT or just BIG BROTHER?
oyster said:
How can speed in any accident not be a contributory factor in the outcome? Only a moron would argue that the effect of a collision at 34mph will be less severe on average than one at 30mph.
I have been hit up the arse whilst at a standstill in a queue twice. If I had been doing 34mph going forwards, the impact would have been much less. Does that change your averages at all 
SeeFive said:
oyster said:
How can speed in any accident not be a contributory factor in the outcome? Only a moron would argue that the effect of a collision at 34mph will be less severe on average than one at 30mph.
I have been hit up the arse whilst at a standstill in a queue twice. If I had been doing 34mph going forwards, the impact would have been much less. Does that change your averages at all 
oyster said:
Previous said:
IAM bloke on LBC was speaking sense earlier:
How many accidents occur in the 30-34 mph, where speed is a contributory factor (and same question for other limits) that would be prevented by this?
How can speed in any accident not be a contributory factor in the outcome? How many accidents occur in the 30-34 mph, where speed is a contributory factor (and same question for other limits) that would be prevented by this?
Only a moron would argue that the effect of a collision at 34mph will be less severe on average than one at 30mph.
If zero tolerance on speed is justifiable, then certainly zero tolerance of s
tty potholed roads should be justified as well.Mr2Mike said:
oyster said:
Previous said:
IAM bloke on LBC was speaking sense earlier:
How many accidents occur in the 30-34 mph, where speed is a contributory factor (and same question for other limits) that would be prevented by this?
How can speed in any accident not be a contributory factor in the outcome? How many accidents occur in the 30-34 mph, where speed is a contributory factor (and same question for other limits) that would be prevented by this?
Only a moron would argue that the effect of a collision at 34mph will be less severe on average than one at 30mph.
If zero tolerance on speed is justifiable, then certainly zero tolerance of s
tty potholed roads should be justified as well.This ridiculous statistic that keeps getting trotted out on PH of accident causation and excessive or illegal speed is a complete red herring. A smokescreen designed to cover up something much more relevant - that excessive and illegal speed is almost certainly more likely to cause injury and death. To argue otherwise is to argue against physics and biology.
EddieSteadyGo said:
That's true. I don't think the issue is about diverting resources, but more to do with priorities.
As things stand, the guidelines allow a small margin of error. It's accepted by pretty much everyone, and it seems reasonable.
When a chief constable uses their time to suggest a more zealous approach is required, it doesn't fit well with what many people feel should be much higher priorities.
For example, I would like to see the chief constable in question advocating a far more zealous approach to dealing with anti-social behaviour, to reducing knife crime, and the epidemic of fraud which is happening online.
But that stuff is hard to tackle, and requires diligent and coordinated effort. And so it is easy to see why it might get pushing onto the 'too difficult' pile.
Just because a CC (who is the national lead for Roads' Policing, talks about something in their 'portfolio', that doesn't mean it's a reflection of overall prioritisation. As things stand, the guidelines allow a small margin of error. It's accepted by pretty much everyone, and it seems reasonable.
When a chief constable uses their time to suggest a more zealous approach is required, it doesn't fit well with what many people feel should be much higher priorities.
For example, I would like to see the chief constable in question advocating a far more zealous approach to dealing with anti-social behaviour, to reducing knife crime, and the epidemic of fraud which is happening online.
But that stuff is hard to tackle, and requires diligent and coordinated effort. And so it is easy to see why it might get pushing onto the 'too difficult' pile.
Looking at both national and local police strategy and prioritisation, it's clear where the priorities are.
oyster said:
SeeFive said:
oyster said:
How can speed in any accident not be a contributory factor in the outcome? Only a moron would argue that the effect of a collision at 34mph will be less severe on average than one at 30mph.
I have been hit up the arse whilst at a standstill in a queue twice. If I had been doing 34mph going forwards, the impact would have been much less. Does that change your averages at all 
indeed, but observation being more critical than speed as the statistics would prove deems that would not happen to a completely alert driving god with razor sharp reactions like me La Liga said:
ust because a CC (who is the national lead for Roads' Policing, talks about something in their 'portfolio', that doesn't mean it's a reflection of overall prioritisation.
Looking at both national and local police strategy and prioritisation, it's clear where the priorities are.
And so on that basis, you think he might have a little more awareness of how his words might be counterproductive. At least, that's how I see it.Looking at both national and local police strategy and prioritisation, it's clear where the priorities are.
I'm pleased that I drove/rode at speed in the previous century, 100mph+ for extended periods on the A1 on long summer's evenings being particularly memorable, also similar on the then-new A9. Had to watch for plod, but at least there wasn't that nagging wait for something through the letterbox within the next two weeks.
Older posters will recall when 100mph+ for long runs on the A1 could include overtaking marked police cars, must have been happy days.
Older posters will recall when 100mph+ for long runs on the A1 could include overtaking marked police cars, must have been happy days.
oyster said:
OK replace the accusation of moron with obstinate prat.
This ridiculous statistic that keeps getting trotted out on PH of accident causation and excessive or illegal speed is a complete red herring. A smokescreen designed to cover up something much more relevant - that excessive and illegal speed is almost certainly more likely to cause injury and death. To argue otherwise is to argue against physics and biology.
if you want to be truly pedantic you'd have to say that the cause of death is the sudden stop and not the speed. The problem we have is that it's being drummed into people that "speed kills" "speed = bad" ad nauseam with little or no thought going into the idea that bad driving isn't a good idea. That middle lane hogging can cause congestion and accidents. This ridiculous statistic that keeps getting trotted out on PH of accident causation and excessive or illegal speed is a complete red herring. A smokescreen designed to cover up something much more relevant - that excessive and illegal speed is almost certainly more likely to cause injury and death. To argue otherwise is to argue against physics and biology.
I have, in common with many others, travelled well in excess of 100mph and haven't been killed to death. That being said I've also been the slowest thing on a motorway when it's been raining torrentially or foggy
irocfan said:
oyster said:
OK replace the accusation of moron with obstinate prat.
This ridiculous statistic that keeps getting trotted out on PH of accident causation and excessive or illegal speed is a complete red herring. A smokescreen designed to cover up something much more relevant - that excessive and illegal speed is almost certainly more likely to cause injury and death. To argue otherwise is to argue against physics and biology.
if you want to be truly pedantic you'd have to say that the cause of death is the sudden stop and not the speed. The problem we have is that it's being drummed into people that "speed kills" "speed = bad" ad nauseam with little or no thought going into the idea that bad driving isn't a good idea. That middle lane hogging can cause congestion and accidents. This ridiculous statistic that keeps getting trotted out on PH of accident causation and excessive or illegal speed is a complete red herring. A smokescreen designed to cover up something much more relevant - that excessive and illegal speed is almost certainly more likely to cause injury and death. To argue otherwise is to argue against physics and biology.
I have, in common with many others, travelled well in excess of 100mph and haven't been killed to death. That being said I've also been the slowest thing on a motorway when it's been raining torrentially or foggy
99% of people on the road are not driving gods. They won’t improve their driving because they’re not interested. So the only way to protect them (and others) is to slow them down.
irocfan said:
oyster said:
OK replace the accusation of moron with obstinate prat.
This ridiculous statistic that keeps getting trotted out on PH of accident causation and excessive or illegal speed is a complete red herring. A smokescreen designed to cover up something much more relevant - that excessive and illegal speed is almost certainly more likely to cause injury and death. To argue otherwise is to argue against physics and biology.
if you want to be truly pedantic you'd have to say that the cause of death is the sudden stop and not the speed. The problem we have is that it's being drummed into people that "speed kills" "speed = bad" ad nauseam with little or no thought going into the idea that bad driving isn't a good idea. That middle lane hogging can cause congestion and accidents. This ridiculous statistic that keeps getting trotted out on PH of accident causation and excessive or illegal speed is a complete red herring. A smokescreen designed to cover up something much more relevant - that excessive and illegal speed is almost certainly more likely to cause injury and death. To argue otherwise is to argue against physics and biology.
I have, in common with many others, travelled well in excess of 100mph and haven't been killed to death. That being said I've also been the slowest thing on a motorway when it's been raining torrentially or foggy
The current policy is, in effect ,a tax on motorists that has very little to do with road safety.
JagLover said:
irocfan said:
oyster said:
OK replace the accusation of moron with obstinate prat.
This ridiculous statistic that keeps getting trotted out on PH of accident causation and excessive or illegal speed is a complete red herring. A smokescreen designed to cover up something much more relevant - that excessive and illegal speed is almost certainly more likely to cause injury and death. To argue otherwise is to argue against physics and biology.
if you want to be truly pedantic you'd have to say that the cause of death is the sudden stop and not the speed. The problem we have is that it's being drummed into people that "speed kills" "speed = bad" ad nauseam with little or no thought going into the idea that bad driving isn't a good idea. That middle lane hogging can cause congestion and accidents. This ridiculous statistic that keeps getting trotted out on PH of accident causation and excessive or illegal speed is a complete red herring. A smokescreen designed to cover up something much more relevant - that excessive and illegal speed is almost certainly more likely to cause injury and death. To argue otherwise is to argue against physics and biology.
I have, in common with many others, travelled well in excess of 100mph and haven't been killed to death. That being said I've also been the slowest thing on a motorway when it's been raining torrentially or foggy
The current policy is, in effect ,a tax on motorists that has very little to do with road safety.
If a reduction in speed increases accident likelihood but reduces the overall death and serious injury rate, then it's succeeded.
There's not much evidence that shows reduced speed causes more accidents is there? Can anyone find it? It feels like a PH myth.
oyster said:
There's not much evidence that shows reduced speed causes more accidents is there? Can anyone find it? It feels like a PH myth.
There was this article last year refering to a study done around Bath, it also refers to another instance in Portsmouth.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/17/20mph-...
I think this is unworkable
Requires too much precision on behalf of the car, the speed guns etc and can you imagine the sheer bureaucracy cost of dolling out fines to everyone and their mother? It'll end up costing them way more in admin than they'd collect in fines.
Perhaps that is them being altruistic, truly concerned for safety and not lining the coffers, but it wont be sustainable.
The present system is fine. If they want, they could go 5% +2mph or something (which I am sure is probably the goal, i.e. suggest something totally daft to arrive at what you wanted in the first place).
And surely the number of bad accidents where speed is the main or only contributing factor has got to be pretty small. I remember seeing the DfT's own numbers on this and it seemed to me like there were many many low hanging fruit to tackle before we got to clamping down on people doing 3 mph over the limit.
Requires too much precision on behalf of the car, the speed guns etc and can you imagine the sheer bureaucracy cost of dolling out fines to everyone and their mother? It'll end up costing them way more in admin than they'd collect in fines.
Perhaps that is them being altruistic, truly concerned for safety and not lining the coffers, but it wont be sustainable.
The present system is fine. If they want, they could go 5% +2mph or something (which I am sure is probably the goal, i.e. suggest something totally daft to arrive at what you wanted in the first place).
And surely the number of bad accidents where speed is the main or only contributing factor has got to be pretty small. I remember seeing the DfT's own numbers on this and it seemed to me like there were many many low hanging fruit to tackle before we got to clamping down on people doing 3 mph over the limit.
oyster said:
99% of people on the road are not driving gods. They won’t improve their driving because they’re not interested. So the only way to protect them (and others) is to slow them down.
The problem is how far do you extend that logic. Slow people to 10mph then the injuries will be less than at 20mph, slow then to 5mph and they will be less again. Ban moving altogether?At some point we must trust people to make their own judgements regarding safe speeds with sensible not draconian limits. Whatever limit you set there will always be bad driving d
heads who ignore the limits, changing the limits or tolerance (much the same thing) will not change the dheads.The Chief Constable concerned is my CC. Sir, you are, with respect, a prat. The force is on its knees and you are wasting your time buggering around with pie in the sky proposals that will be, at best, very expensive to implement, create an even larger wedge between the police and the public, whilst at worst will prove to be completely unenforceable.
If you want zero tolerance, let's have some zero tolerance elsewhere on things that might just get more public support than this. Like serious drug dealing from traveller camps. Get some hard stops and proper nut and bolt searches on the numerous 'tree surgeon' vehicles they are using to transport and distribute stuff to lower level dealers.
Oh no money for that but resources for an officer hiding in the hedge behind our houses last night for speeding motorists.
If you want zero tolerance, let's have some zero tolerance elsewhere on things that might just get more public support than this. Like serious drug dealing from traveller camps. Get some hard stops and proper nut and bolt searches on the numerous 'tree surgeon' vehicles they are using to transport and distribute stuff to lower level dealers.
Oh no money for that but resources for an officer hiding in the hedge behind our houses last night for speeding motorists.
FiF said:
The Chief Constable concerned is my CC. Sir, you are, with respect, a prat. The force is on its knees and you are wasting your time buggering around with pie in the sky proposals that will be, at best, very expensive to implement, create an even larger wedge between the police and the public, whilst at worst will prove to be completely unenforceable.
If you want zero tolerance, let's have some zero tolerance elsewhere on things that might just get more public support than this. Like serious drug dealing from traveller camps. Get some hard stops and proper nut and bolt searches on the numerous 'tree surgeon' vehicles they are using to transport and distribute stuff to lower level dealers.
Oh no money for that but resources for an officer hiding in the hedge behind our houses last night for speeding motorists.
I support every word of that & suspect that many others will feel the same.If you want zero tolerance, let's have some zero tolerance elsewhere on things that might just get more public support than this. Like serious drug dealing from traveller camps. Get some hard stops and proper nut and bolt searches on the numerous 'tree surgeon' vehicles they are using to transport and distribute stuff to lower level dealers.
Oh no money for that but resources for an officer hiding in the hedge behind our houses last night for speeding motorists.
oyster said:
Whilst I tend to agree with you, both parts of your reply miss a critical point - that the general driving public just don’t have the talent or the inclination to apply the same sort of logic that you and I may do to driving.
99% of people on the road are not driving gods. They won’t improve their driving because they’re not interested. So the only way to protect them (and others) is to slow them down.
What makes you think that dropping the prosecution threshold by a few mph will actually slow people down? Will "zero tolerance" guarantee the availability of police resources required to enforce it? Will people already significantly exceeding the limit suddenly stop this behaviour?99% of people on the road are not driving gods. They won’t improve their driving because they’re not interested. So the only way to protect them (and others) is to slow them down.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff