Safe Speed Forums

you mentioned anti social behaviour too Other than the Antisocial Behavior Act 2003 - (a very bad piece of law) what were you refering to, the Police Act (which has questionable legal validity over the bill of rights Act 1689).

If their driving is below an acceptable level of competence then I submit that they be prosecuted for that. Speed limits form a poor proxy for a competence test, as I believe there are an overwhelming majority of drivers whose actions are acceptably safe and competent, and their only error is in breaking an arbitrary (and often inappropriately low) speed limit. And as we see more and more speed limits lowered for political rather than safety reasons this percentage will increase still further.

Put simply, it is my belief that only a relatively low percentage of drivers are habitually incompetent, probably < 10%, yet the vast majority routinely break speed limits, probably > 80%. Therefore if we rely on adherence to speed limits as some sort of competence test then about 9 out of ten times we'll be prosecuting the wrong people!


I can understand that you are in an awkward position, as an arbiter of such things, but I really don't think it is as simple and clear cut as that. I would say that a "good" driver matches his speed to to that which feels appropriate to his judgement of hazards around him. When there are a high number of hazards he will naturally slow right down to well below the speed limit, eg when passing a school at "chucking out time". But by the same token if he uses this same judgement the rest of the time it will be inevitable that his speed creeps over the limit too. In the same way that there are many places where the limit in force is too high (eg at the school) then also there are many places where it is too low. If we tell people to use the speed limit as their primary guide then they will be travelling at the "wrong" speed for the conditions probably nearly all the time. However, if we tell people to use their judgement of hazard density and stopping distances as their primary guide, and regard speed limits as a secondary aid, then they will be much safer, then safety will improve but speed limit adherence will be lower. But which makes for a nation of safer drivers?

It is not about deliberately flouting the law, it is about prioritising the various activities correctly.


The overwhelming majority of people routinely break speed limits, and does so for perfectly valid reasons, yet the Government insists on punishing them severely for it. How does that represent democracy?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

good point JT.

I think there are 3 kinds of speeders:

incompetant - tried to comply but couldn't <10% of drivers.
Unaware - driving at an appropriate speed based on skill/experience they pay little attenton to the speed limit - pre-97 unlikely to be convicted as speed limits often based on the 85th percentile. probably 50% of drivers
intentional - speeding for thrill or deliberately ignoring the limit because it is inappropriately low - I'd say 40%.

I'm aware of the speed limit 99.99% of the time. occasionally the limit may be illegal and occasionally I may not be concentrating. But I'm never in the situation where I approach a camera or van - not knowing the speed limit (assuming the limit is legal).

Don't you find it absurd that a majority of careful and competent drivers find themselves on the wrong side of the speed limit law frequently?

Policemen, doctors, magistrates, politicians all break the speed limits. Are these irresponsible people ignoring the law?

I put it to you that over zealous enforcement practice has placed the speeding law well outside of pratical reality. And worse - all law suffers as a consequence. Respect for law is fragile and valuable and abuse of the law against a responsible majority seriously damages that respect.

You might wonder why all these responsible people find themselves unable to obey the law, but the little known reasons are clear and simple:

Drivers adjust speed constantly driven mainly by a highly developed subconscious risk assessment process. Road safety entirely depends on this subconscious risk assessment process to keep us safe from crashes - we routinely and reliably slow down in areas of danger - and it is remarkably effective. The risk assessment process tells us how fast to drive and when it tells us that faster than the speed limit is appropriate in the immediate circumstances we respond by breaking the law.

But the behaviour resulting from that risk assessment process is also our most precious road safety asset. In fact it is the true foundation stone of road safety.

See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html which has the same argument in more detail but was written before I identified subconscious risk assessment as the 'driver' of the process.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

so I take it that you'll be happy to have a speed monitoring device fitted to your vehicle and your licence cancelled the first time you exceed a speed limit?

In every thing else we do , walk, run, cycle, reach step and stride we make continuous adjustments to our abilties and the risks we take. We normaly work at about 90% of our normal capabillities. If we are carrying a load we might half our speed or if it is urgent we ill put extra resourses of concentration on line and run.

Yet in a car we are expected to turn off this skill we have developed since birth. All of a sudden we turn off that skill and drive to a number. The brain wich has been acustomed to providing 90% of resources to driving says you only need 60% to drive at this speeed. So we start looking at the houses as we drive past, nice drive, they've got a skip, jumble sale, crash!

Oh well!

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Which is what drivers are taught to do for the DVLA test and the IAM and ROSPA tests if they choose to take them. With one important extra, that they must regard the posted limit as the maximum.

It is the duty of a government to set laws, set punishment guidelines and provide for enforcement.
Voters are able to make their feelings clear by various means.
contacting their MP and the candidates for the other parties.
via the press and other media
via demonstrations
by fielding their own candidates at local and national elections
etc etc

At the last election, in spite of heroic efforts by some people, speed enforcement was so low key it was practically not mentioned.
Whether that was due to apathy or whether the majority are happy with things the way they are I don't know.


To come back to my main point I have no right, legal or moral, to break a law imposed by a government that was returned to power in a free and fair election in which there was little or no objection to the law in question.

You clearly feel differently, but should you end up in court because of it, you may rest assured that even the most anti speeding bench will apply the law as written and will not break the law to get their point across.

Can I suggest, politely, that you have a look at the highway code. There is a lot in there which makes it clear that you should only drive to the limit when it is safe to do so.

If you can do that with only 60% of your attention I envy you, because I can't and neither can anybody else I know.

There will always be people who feel they are above the law.

I dont see it as abuse to post a 30MPH limit and prosecute those who are unable or unwilling to stay below 36MPH, which is the usual threshold.

Why? I assume that you don't break any other laws. If you want a newspaper you buy one, even though Smiths would not miss the 50 or 60p.


It is worth bearing in mind that every driver leaves home with the intention of not getting any points, not damaging his car and not injuring or killing anybody.
Every day thousands fail to do this.
Every JP in the country will tell you stories like this :-
"It was safe to overtake then he pulled out of a gateway"
"There was no other traffic so I drove at 100 on an empty motorway then the police stopped me" If it was empty where the police car come from?
"I was doing 30 in a 30 limit but couldn't stop in time".
"I looked but didn't see the motorbike"

With respect, fisherman, I think that you've missed the point. I will repeat it in bold: Don't you find it absurd that a majority of careful and competent drivers find themselves on the wrong side of the speed limit law frequently?
I also think that SafeSpeed's point regarding the common non-compliance of policemen, doctors, magistrates, politicians (i.e. people who are normally viewed as having some standing in society) deserves addressing.

You should try driving in Suffolk. When the County Council said they were going to impose 30mph limits in all villages it seemed like a good idea. What actually happened was that they stretched the definition of a village so far that for a lot of the time you are in open countryside. I find myself having to make a conscious effort to concentrate on the road ahead when going so slowly for no good reason. This means that a significant percentage of my thought process is completely wasted.

Most people don't actually mind driving within appropriate limits and indeed there is plenty of evidence that average speeds actually increase when limits are set so low that they seem pointless.

The point really is that it has become a very bad law indeed.

* We're not up to complying with it.
* It's not making the roads safer.
* It's criminalising something that would otherwise be regarded as competent and careful driving.
* No other law requires constant vigilance for mere compliance.
* No other law expects us to operate constantly at the margins of legality (in good clear conditions).
* No other law is doing such damage to justice and the police public relationship.
* No other law has countless millions of separate transgressions each day.

Are you sure that this law is worth standing up for?

Actually I think the law was fine with discretionary enforcement. It's automated enforcement that has turned it into a disaster zone.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

You have mis-qouted me! I was pointing out that this would result in inattention and a crash.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Perhaps 'misunderstood' would be more accurate than 'mis-quoted'. (In the interests of harmony... )

The effect referred to is explored on the following Safe Speed page: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/arousal.html

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I'm sure you know in reality that this isn't comparable to speeding.

If you wanted to make an analogy to stealing newspapers, a better one would be a scenario where you are required so steal a certain set number of newspapers per second (since when driving, a speed of zero is usually illegal) , but you accidentally drifted above that number for a moment.

I was trying to convey the principle of what an expensive lawyer would call "mens rea". The concept of the guilty mind when someone takes a deliberate decision to break the law because of a personal justification which does not provide a legal defence.

Sorry!
I read it as you deliberately reducing the amount of attention you give to the road when complying with a limit you think is too slow.

from 2001 to 2003 (the latest figures I have) 9% of UK drivers were convicted of speeding, in France 8%, everywhere else in europe was higher with netherlands at 46%. So we are not doing too badly.

Would allowing drivers to set their own limits make things any safer? Before you say yes think of the people who overtake you when you are already travelling as fast as is compatible with safety. Bear in mind that UK roads are equal with sweden as the safest in europe. And, yes, I am aware of the potential for misuse of statistics.

Criminalisation is a consequence of being caught breaking the law. A fact which is well known to those who chose to do so. I am not sure whether deliberate breaking of a law really can be said to be "competent and careful". Certainly when considering careless driving charges I would be very wary of saying that someone who (for example) was at 20MPH over the limit could be truly said to be "careful and competent" even if speed was not a direct cause of the problem that lead to the charge. That is of neccessity a generalisation, all cases are judged on individual circumstances but I suspect it will give a few people something to argue about.

Surely constant vigilance is a neccessary pre-requisite for safe driving.
I can only speak for myself, but I am constantly tempted to do all sorts of things I shouldn't.
That I do agree with, but feel that as the majority of drivers have no problem with the speed laws part of the responsibilty must lie with the vocal minority.
Does that mean that we should do away with it? After all no law will ever prevent law breaking completely.
In common with all JPs when there is a new law, or significant change to existing law, I think very carefully about whether or not I am prepared to enforce it. In this case I drove with 2 colleagues to northamptonshire (which was one of the first places to have speed cameras) to visit a friend and have a look at the cameras and talk to people in the pub. I came to the conclusion that the potential for good outweighs the bad. It is also worth pointing out that I post here from a JP point of view not as a private individual. The fact that I uphold a law should not be taken as proof that I am 100% in favour of it.

That does interest me. Laws are OK until people are caught, then they are bad law!!!!!!!

My brain cell needs a little help with this one... does this statistic mean that from 2001 to 2003 46% of the Dutch driving population was convicted of speeding? Any links or references?

Re: <a lot of stuff> the robotic enforcement regime is the problem. There is enough well laid out information on this site for me not to have to spell it out again.

But I am still interested in your opinions about the large scale non-compliance of the speed laws, and the fact that many people who regularly exceed a posted speed limit are highly respected members of society, educated, skilled and otherwise law-abiding.

Can you tell us your views on speed enforcement practice?

I presume that comment means you think 91% of the population obey speed limits 100% of the time. I really hope that's not what you mean.
BTW, you still haven't answered whether you'd accept a speed monitoring device in your car which would cancel your licence the instant you broke a speed limit but I guess we know why that is.