Speed camera FAQs
Discussion
Nothing new here but thought it may be of interest
www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/cameras/faqs/pdf/faqs.pdf
Answers such as "Speeding is both a serious and criminal offence" (Q6) are particularly puke-worthy.
www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/cameras/faqs/pdf/faqs.pdf
Answers such as "Speeding is both a serious and criminal offence" (Q6) are particularly puke-worthy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not a criminal offence.
Also "Speeding and red-light running are very serious crimes and kill and injure thousands of people every year."
Approximately 3,000 people die on our roads each year. One of these days I'll dig out the stats that show the proportion related to drink driving, pedestrian at fault accidents etc. Even if you accept the ludicrous 30% stat that is banded about, that's significantly less than 1,000 due to speed.
The focus is so wrong. Inattentive driving is responsible for more deaths than anyone doing 35mph in a 30 zone.
Also "Speeding and red-light running are very serious crimes and kill and injure thousands of people every year."
Approximately 3,000 people die on our roads each year. One of these days I'll dig out the stats that show the proportion related to drink driving, pedestrian at fault accidents etc. Even if you accept the ludicrous 30% stat that is banded about, that's significantly less than 1,000 due to speed.
The focus is so wrong. Inattentive driving is responsible for more deaths than anyone doing 35mph in a 30 zone.
Why is the Government so obsessed with speeding when it is bad driving that is the real problem?
The TRL report 323 ‘A New System for Recording Contributory Factors in Road Accidents’ is about contributory factors in accidents in the context of a
new accident data recording system being brought into STATS 19.
Speed as a contributory factor is shown in the report to occur in about 7% of accidents, whilst the Government normally quote about one third. This apparent disparity can be explained. Excessive speed as a causation factor may be coded for any one of the following reasons:
- Excess speed for the limit
- Excess speed for the vehicle (e.g. LGV)
- Excess speed for the conditions
Although speed was not always shown as a factor in the trial schemes, which is what the report is about, speed is clearly a factor when the causes are
shown as any of the following:
- Sudden braking
- Careless/reckless driving
- Following too close
- Behaviour – in a hurry
- Loss of control of a vehicle
- Poor overtaking, etc.
TRL has issued a statement in TRL News (September 2002) explaining that its report No. 323 has been misunderstood. A more relevant report that
explains the speed - accident relationship is the Effects of Drivers' Speed on the Frequency of Road Accidents TRL Report No. 421.
Since when does following someone too close have anything to do with speeding?
PetrolTed said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not a criminal offence.
Well I thought that it wasn't (certainly doesn't rank high in my "most wanted" list) but my Solicitor recently told me that it was - BTW I commited that most heinous of crimes (exceeding the 60mph limit on a clear road), I'm guilty, I dunnit, I deserve to be punished as the vile criminal scumbag that I am
"I fought the law and the law won"...
+ 
+ 
= 
>> Edited by cazzo on Sunday 23 February 15:10
I don't think there's much point trying to understand how the government can "misunderstand" statistics (always to their advantage / to justify what they're doing).
It's they they will always twist things their way; you just have to make the accident statistics VERY clear so that even the government with ulterior motives would find it difficult to twist the facts.
You can't raise revenue by measuring inattentiveness, being sleepy or being a bad driver always travelling at 29mph etc etc, but you can from measuring speed - it's easy money!
It's just revenue-raising...look at congestion charging, which is another name for "captive market charging".
It's they they will always twist things their way; you just have to make the accident statistics VERY clear so that even the government with ulterior motives would find it difficult to twist the facts.
You can't raise revenue by measuring inattentiveness, being sleepy or being a bad driver always travelling at 29mph etc etc, but you can from measuring speed - it's easy money!
It's just revenue-raising...look at congestion charging, which is another name for "captive market charging".
P*Ting said: Betcha anything I can drive recklessly, loose control and be inattentive at 29mph. Or even 19mph in a residential area!
And that is exactly the point. If you did that in those circumstances, you would not do anywhere near as much damage than you would if you were failing to concentrate and drive recklessly at 50 mph in the same area.
PetrolTed said: Surely it can't be. You'd have to declare a criminal record when applying for jobs even if you'd got 3 points on your licence.
Madcop?
There are three types of offences.
1. Criminal (which covers road traffic law and the criminal law)
2. Civil which cover torts rather than offences (very simplified)
3. Complaints (such as breach of the peace and not keeping a dog under control)
The confusion here is those offences that are recordable offences and those that are not.
Speeding and parking in the zig zags on a zebra crossing are examples of criminal offences which are not recordable.
Murder and soddomising the neighbours chinchila are offences which are recordable and therefore attract a criminal record and are those which require you to disclose them at a job interview.
madcop said: Murder and soddomising the neighbours chinchila are offences which are recordable and therefore attract a criminal record and are those which require you to disclose them at a job interview.
Not that anyone can check, unless you specifically allow them access to your criminal record...
Well, for most types of jobs anyway.
Matt.
plotloss said:
Not that anyone can check, unless you specifically allow them access to your criminal record...
Well, for most types of jobs anyway.
Matt.
Which is correct but to fail to do so if the application form requests information about a conviction and you gain employment that would not have been given to you if you had, then the applicant commits an offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception (Theft Act 1968 and 10 years). Some may never be found out, it surprising the number that are though!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff