Speeding not allowed - but shunts might be OK ?
Discussion
Maybe there is something wrong with my way of looking at things but I can not see the logic in the following:
We have a system of mandatory - rather than advisory - speed limits (unfortunately, in my view) and anyone caught exceeding those limits is liable to a penalty of some kind. That is the way the system works, even when no one comes to any harm or is even being placed at risk.
As a contrast let me refer to two incidents:-
1. Some months ago a lorry was being driven into Whitby on the coast road from Scarborough. The lorry failed to negotiate a LH bend in a 30 mph area, and it went straight on and hit the front of a shop. As a result there was damage to the building and the vehicle. Fortunately there were no pedestrians in the way so no one was hurt, and no other vehicles were involved. The police attended the incident but beyond that, no action was taken.
2. Following England's Rugby World Cup success there were celebrations in London. At the end of the evening Jonny Wilkinson was travelling home to the North East in a Lexus being driven by someone else. In the early hours of the following morning somewhere on the A1 near Leeming in North Yorkshire, the car left the road, went off into the greenery and hit a tree. Again there were fortunately no injuries of any significance, and the police attended the scene but took no action beyond that.
I think I have reported the above incidents accurately, but if anyone believes otherwise I hope they will say so.
It just seems so illogical to me that one can be penalised (in some cases quite severely) for exceeding arbitrary speed limits without doing any harm, and yet we are apparently at liberty to have accidents and there is no penalty.
How do others feel about this comparison?
Best wishes all.
Dave - serious speeder (NSL only) but extremely small time shunter.
We have a system of mandatory - rather than advisory - speed limits (unfortunately, in my view) and anyone caught exceeding those limits is liable to a penalty of some kind. That is the way the system works, even when no one comes to any harm or is even being placed at risk.
As a contrast let me refer to two incidents:-
1. Some months ago a lorry was being driven into Whitby on the coast road from Scarborough. The lorry failed to negotiate a LH bend in a 30 mph area, and it went straight on and hit the front of a shop. As a result there was damage to the building and the vehicle. Fortunately there were no pedestrians in the way so no one was hurt, and no other vehicles were involved. The police attended the incident but beyond that, no action was taken.
2. Following England's Rugby World Cup success there were celebrations in London. At the end of the evening Jonny Wilkinson was travelling home to the North East in a Lexus being driven by someone else. In the early hours of the following morning somewhere on the A1 near Leeming in North Yorkshire, the car left the road, went off into the greenery and hit a tree. Again there were fortunately no injuries of any significance, and the police attended the scene but took no action beyond that.
I think I have reported the above incidents accurately, but if anyone believes otherwise I hope they will say so.
It just seems so illogical to me that one can be penalised (in some cases quite severely) for exceeding arbitrary speed limits without doing any harm, and yet we are apparently at liberty to have accidents and there is no penalty.
How do others feel about this comparison?
Best wishes all.
Dave - serious speeder (NSL only) but extremely small time shunter.
Yes. I posted something very similar months ago.
If you've proved that you've driven dangerously, ie you had a crash - no action. But do 45 in a 40 limit and get points and a fine!
You're right. It's all Nonsense.
The thing to bear in mind is it's all about money. When you look at it from that perspective it all kind of fits in.
My first reaction to this was, cameras are to force a reduction in speed, not in the number of accidents. Partnerships don't care about accidents. But then I realised that it's only accidents that cause KSIs -- speed cannot do this on its own (believe it or not!!).
I've even heard Partnerships justify cameras on the basis of accident reduction when there has been no KSI reduction.
Makes a mockery of the situation really, doesn't it? Speed without an accident and get fined. Have an accident without speeding and it's ok (though I would suggest that not every accident is caused by dangerous driving). The conclusion is to have all your accidents below the speed limit so nobody will notice.
I've even heard Partnerships justify cameras on the basis of accident reduction when there has been no KSI reduction.
Makes a mockery of the situation really, doesn't it? Speed without an accident and get fined. Have an accident without speeding and it's ok (though I would suggest that not every accident is caused by dangerous driving). The conclusion is to have all your accidents below the speed limit so nobody will notice.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff