Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Aug 09, 2020 23:31

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:20 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Daily Mail

Quote:
Drivers who hog the middle lane of a motorway face £100 fines and three penalty points.

In a crackdown on anti-social motoring unveiled today, a new fixed penalty offence of careless driving will also target those who cut up other cars, tailgate or block a dual carriageway’s outside lane.

Ministers are at the same time increasing from £60 to £100 the fines for a range of existing offences.

These include using a hand-held phone at the wheel, speeding, jumping lights and failing to wear a seat belt. All bar the last also carry three penalty points.

Police officers, guided by the Highway Code, will have to decide who is guilty of hogging the middle lane or tailgating – getting too close to the car in front.

They will issue the fines at the roadside. It is likely that only the worst drivers, who misbehave over half a mile or more, will be fined and given penalty points.

Occasional offenders will be given the chance to go on a driving course similar to those offered to speeders.

Edmund King of the AA said middle-lane hogs, tailgaters and mobile phone users were the top three most hated types of driver in a poll of members.

But he said the bureaucratic difficulty and expense of securing convictions would mean only the most serious offenders would be targeted. ‘There has to be discretion,’ he added.

‘If someone is driving for half a mile in the middle lane when the inside lane is clear, then it’s a clear case. Under this system it will be easy for a police car to stop you and give you a ticket.’

He said using fixed cameras to track tailgaters was technically difficult and had not worked in other countries.

The £100 fines are to be announced in a written statement by road safety minister Stephen Hammond and follow a public consultation exercise last year.

They will apply to motorways, dual carriageways and three-lane highways such as the A3 from south-west London through Surrey and Hampshire, which is notorious for ‘middle-lane hoggers’.

Stephen Glaister of the RAC Foundation welcomed the crackdown but insisted tougher fines must be accompanied by tougher enforcement.

‘Anti-social behaviour is as big a problem on the roads as it is in wider society,’ he said. ‘Giving police more discretion to act, and freeing up resources to allow them to do so by cutting procedural delays in court, is good news.

‘We are also pleased to see that the stick is accompanied by the chance of re-education for moderate offenders.

‘Raising the fine level to £100 is justifiable to tackle the plague of handheld mobile phone use which slows drivers’ reaction times even more than being at the drink drive limit or taking cannabis. The police need to target the large number of motorists continuing to flout the law daily.’

Last month the Mail reported that Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin was preparing action against antisocial drivers with increased fines.

Mr McLoughlin said unacceptable and potentially lethal behaviour such as texting, tweeting or using Facebook at the wheel was causing fatal accidents.

Hands-free mobile phone use while driving is legal. But the use of hand-held phones has been banned since 2003 and became an endorsable offence in 2007.

In today’s crackdown, fines for uninsured drivers are set to rise from £200 to £300.

Given that this is dependent on on-the-spot action by police patrols I can't to be honest see it accounting for very much.

And there must be a concern that it is potentially putting the police in the position of being judge and jury and denying alleged offenders any recourse to the courts - unless they have deep pockets and the courage of their convictions. And what's the betting that the police will go for the low-hanging fruit and use it to prosecute relatively trivial offences rather than going for the really antisocial and dangerous driving which often takes place in inner cities and on housing estates rather than on motorways?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 13:28 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
You beat me to this story Peter, heard it on the news this morning, and I thought it was a step in the right direction TBH.

I would hope that the traffic police would, at the very least, ask you to take a seat in their car to watch a video of any alleged bad driving - in which case I think I would call it ‘a fair cop’. Middle lane morons get on my nerves but I have an almost emetic reaction to tailgaters. So to hear they are trying to address that one is okay by me.

It’s a shame they have lumped speeding into the mix :banghead: but nice to see “Edmund King of the AA said middle-lane hogs, tailgaters and mobile phone users were the top three most hated types of driver in a poll of members”. :yesyes: No mention of speeding there. :)

We, (SS), have always advocated better policing over dumb enforcement AFAIR. The bottom line, however, is there are not enough resources and funds to get the police we want on the roads anyway. So this is all probably no more than another fig leaf gesture towards better road safety..

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 14:03 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Will they be going after HGV drivers for elephant racing and tailgating, then? It's very common to see two HGVs on the motorway with well under a lorry length between them.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 14:51 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
PeterE wrote:
Will they be going after HGV drivers for elephant racing and tailgating, then? It's very common to see two HGVs on the motorway with well under a lorry length between them.
That’s a good one! Even though it’s usually by consent, the driver behind flashes for the other to pull in, does that drop them both in it? Inciting another driver to act dangerously? :scratchchin:

They haven’t thought this through have they? (Pasty tax, room tax).

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 15:27 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
As someone said elsewhere, there will be a few high-profile blitzes but apart from that it won't make any noticeable difference.

I know not everyone on here agrees with this, but I wouldn't be averse to a bit of a zero-tolerance crackdown on handheld mobiles which I see as a pretty good proxy for a generally poor attitude to driving.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 15:41 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
PeterE wrote:
I know not everyone on here agrees with this, but I wouldn't be averse to a bit of a zero-tolerance crackdown on handheld mobiles which I see as a pretty good proxy for a generally poor attitude to driving.
Hear hear! Image

Or is it here here? I’ll have to look that up...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 18:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7361
Location: Highlands
BBC News wrote:
Motorway middle-lane hoggers to face on-the-spot fines
5 June 2013 Last updated at 10:26
Comments (1703) [already!]
Middle-lane hogging traffic on a busy road Tailgating and middle-lane hogging will now incur fixed penalties
Motorway tailgaters and middle-lane hoggers are to face quick justice with on-the-spot penalties under new measures announced by the government.
From July, police will be able to issue £100 fines and three points for careless driving offences that would currently have to go to court.
The idea is to target offenders without the need for lengthy court procedures.
Current fixed penalties for using a phone while driving or not wearing a seatbelt will also rise by £40 to £100.
The move brings careless driving offences into line with the penalties for similar non-motoring fixed penalties. Drivers will still be able to appeal against any decision through the courts.

'Pet hates'
People guilty of careless driving will face fixed penalties or the chance to go on a driving course, but the more serious examples will continue to go through the courts, where offenders could face much higher fines and penalties.
Many offences currently go unpunished because of the bureaucracy involved in taking a case to court.

Analysis
image of Richard Westcott Richard Westcott BBC transport correspondent
The Department of Transport has not yet released official guidance on which types of driving will attract fines.
But police are expected to focus on situations involving slightly aggressive and inconsiderate driving, such as:
Driving too close to the vehicle in front
Failing to give way at a junction (not requiring evasive action by another driver)
Overtaking and pushing into a queue of traffic
Being in the wrong lane and pushing into a queue on a roundabout
Lane discipline, eg needlessly hogging the middle or outside lanes
Inappropriate speed
Wheel-spins, handbrake turns and other careless manoeuvres

Not only does a motorist have to be stopped by the police, but a summons has to be issued and evidence presented in court.
Road Safety Minister Stephen Hammond said: "Careless drivers are a menace and their negligence puts innocent people's lives at risk.
"That is why we are making it easier for the police to tackle problem drivers by allowing them to immediately issue a fixed penalty notice rather than needing to take every offender to court."

The AA said responsible drivers would welcome the changes.
"We are also pleased to see that at long last new powers and fines will be given to the police to tackle the top three pet hates of drivers - tailgaters, mobile phone abusers and middle lane hogs," said AA president Edmund King.

The RAC also welcomed an increase in fines to tackle the "plague" of mobile phone use.
RAC Foundation director Professor Stephen Glaister said: "Anti-social behaviour is as big a problem on the roads as it is in wider society.
"Giving police more discretion to act, and freeing up resources to allow them to do so by cutting procedural delays in court, is good news.
"Raising the fine level to £100 is justifiable to tackle the plague of handheld mobile phone use which slows drivers' reaction times even more than being at the drink-drive limit or taking cannabis."

Downplays the offence
Tim Shallcross, Institute of Advanced Motorists: ''For on-the-spot fines, you need on-the-spot policemen''
But the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) said it had concerns about the message sent out by the changes.
Its director of policy Neil Grieg said: "This is a major change in traffic law enforcement and the IAM is concerned that issuing fixed penalty tickets for careless driving downplays the seriousness of the offence.
"Careless covers a wide range of poor to reckless driving behaviour that often merits further investigation.
"This could free up traffic police time and allow them to maintain a higher profile.
"But without traffic cops out on the road to enforce this new approach it will have little impact on road safety."

Motoring journalist Quentin Willson also questioned whether there would be enough traffic police to make the changes work.
He said: "It's broadly to be welcomed because it marks a shift away from remote policing - that's cameras - to actually using traffic cops.
Motorists' views: "Just a money-making thing'' or "fair enough"?
"But the problem is the amount of traffic police cars has been cut since 1997 by 50%, so the obvious question is 'how do you enforce this?' It's deeply faulted."

Richard Owen from the research group Road Safety Analysis said most motorists would welcome the changes.
He told the BBC: "We already know that the UK's motorways are some of the safest roads in the country, if not Europe.
"But of course, that relies on everybody playing their part and sticking to the rules and I think most motorists would welcome any further enforcement to make sure that people aren't lane hogging or maybe tailgating."
Curious how the last comment stems from the Group of Companies benefiting from the whole Speed Camera Industry and the fundamental reason that the £100 has been promoted to the Government, is so that Courses are more favourable as people were preferring to pay up the £60, than take their (very profitable) course/s !!! :(

Regarding :
DoT wrote:
1 Driving too close to the vehicle in front
2 Failing to give way at a junction (not requiring evasive action by another driver)
3 Overtaking and pushing into a queue of traffic
4 Being in the wrong lane and pushing into a queue on a roundabout
5 Lane discipline, eg needlessly hogging the middle or outside lanes
6 Inappropriate speed
7 Wheel-spins, handbrake turns and other careless manoeuvres
I agree without enough police on the roads (well trained one's a good thing and delighted to see their return but they must be properly trained or it will continue to widen the large rift that exists already.
Generally with all of this we need education to encourage the right behaviour FIRST. And people who are tugged (unless they plan cameras for all of these issues !?? :scratchchin: ) may only need a bit of a ticking off than a ticket. Lets not forget this 'rush' of added fines and points will see more people driven off the road, so people who are already paranoid about cameras might now be even more fearful whenever they see any possible sighting of police potentially taking their livelihood away ... more 'easily'.
I thoroughly agree to more police but I'd like to see along side this some serious media promotion of 'good driving practices' too.

1- good but is this going to be 'just for a moment' seen by a copper or sustained and deliberate ?
2 - fair enough if enforced fairly but will likely see increases in car cams to help people prove their innocence...
3 - highly controversial and needs to be really clear on the wrong and right action/s. Since WHEN is overtaking a 'crime' ??? that is seriously worrying !
Are they wanting everyone to follow everyone else like little zombies ? Might lead to even greater tailbacks?
4 - non-sense - I can think of changing direction and other reasons to change where you are going. A new indication and alteration should NEVER be prosecutable !
5 - potentially very good and might really help to keep people in L1 and allow better traffic flow ... but people will be really 'confused' that things they have been doing for years incorrectly will now see them gain points and cost them a lot of money - not that 60 wasn't already 'enough'.
6 - for what and who ? very good or very bad. A policeman who has no further driving education and many, many that do, cannot always tell what might be 'inappropriate' - if this is driven by 'targets' then it will be an excuse to print money at the cost of road safety. But if this is applied carefully and responsibly then it might help those who do use speed badly to get a tug and some advice or dealt with accordingly.
7 - this could go as far as a clamp down on anything that isn't 'straight forward car control' and anything outside of it (if seen) condemned by law, but how do youngsters learn if not 'playing', so they will go 'underground'. For those who behave without (any) care though, then this could be very good.

Lets not forget that you currently (this will need to be changed !) can only attend one course in 3yrs and 12 points will see you banned (typically unless challenged in Court). The course people need drivers on the road to squeeze every penny from them. If their education was unbiased and sound then I would agree with it but much of it is twisted and wrong.
Given that during the last 20years of targeting motorists un-necessarily and even to the point of turning good drivers bad, as well as degrading road safety, I fear that this might be taken to extremes by some or many inexperienced police trying to return to police the roads. Over-zealous bosses too that have thought speed is a panacea to road safety, won't help either. I think it will help over time, when things settle down, but that is probably another 20years away.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 19:36 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 14:42
Posts: 20
2. Number of times I have had to take avoiding action while on a roundabout when a driver joining has just ignored the 'give way to traffic' rule completely. There seems to be a breed of driver who learned to drive on the continent, where the give way to traffic joining the R/A is the rule in some countries!!!
3. I think this is aimed at those drivers who leave exiting the major road until the very last moment, just to get ahead by a few cars in the queue.
4. Have to say this is a bit of an odd one - I plead guilty to travelling an unknown route and at a R/A or other junction finding myself in the wrong lane I have "pushed" into the queue, albeit by indicating and waiting for another driver to allow me in.
5. Will fully paid up members of the Central Lane Owners Club now be entitled to a refund? Drivers seem to just 'switch off' when they are dawdling along in lane 2 or 3, and if you flash your headlights to say "I am here" or use your right hand indicator (as I used to do when driving in Germany/Holland/Belgium) then you could be accused of driving aggressively!!!
7. Where I live we suffer from a plague of 'boy racers' using the local roads as a race track and the roundabout to the village as a drift pan late at night and up to 3am in the morning on Friday/Saturday/Sunday night. These cars are often fitted with big bore exhausts and some sound like they have NOS kits fitted and can be heard for miles around. They have poured oil onto the local playing field car park several times now and used it as a skid pan, with the result that the surface is like an ice rink for days afterwards. While "Several drivers have been identified" there are still enough left to continue this nuisance. If they are forced off the roads with this system then I for one will be happy!

Back to point 5 - no mention of the 'undertakers' or motorcyclists (with membership of the "Whiteline Weavers Club") who probably are more of a danger than Reginald Molehusband forgetting to move back across to Lane 1, after overtaking that truck 15 miles back.
Another oft seen scenario is the driver joining my local dual carriageway, and moving from the on slip straight across into lane 2 into any space between vehicles.

End of the day there are not enough traffic cops on the road to take this on - how long before the Traffic Wombles/HATOs have additional powers to hand out ASDOs...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 23:08 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
2. Not sure I understand this, if no evasive action is required why is it failing to give way? Perhaps because I consider having to lift off the throttle evasive action and they mean braking hard or swerving?

3. Depends on the definition of a queue, if this means using the marked right turn lane then forcing your way across into the straight on lane then possibly. If they mean overtaking cars that are just following each other in an NSL, then no. In your definition WhiskeyBob for me it would depend if it was a marked exit lane or simply a slow moving stream where a few of the vehicles wanted to exit onto a slip road. In that circumstance I will assess the traffic gaps and speed differential and either move over 300 yards or more before the exit or slip through a gap between two vehicles not using the exit as I reach the exit. The latter only where I am very familiar with the road and traffic flows though. I never get any flashing lights or gestures so am pretty happy I do not scare or annoy anyone in the way I choose to execute any particular manoeuvre.

4. Not so much being in the wrong lane as not staying with a lane and instead wandering to the right in front of another car.

5. Not expecting someone to dive to the left and have to slow down to let me through, nor should you slavishly need to return to the left if no one is catching you up. Aside from that, burn them.

6. Not too sure about this, just because I can safely drive at 80mph down a particular road does not mean everyone can or is comfortable doing so. I try not to be irritated by people doing 40mph, but to fine them would be a bit cruel.

7. Big drifts and Scandinavian flicks are out of order on the public road (unless you are doing it to avoid an accident, going to be a bit rare though), a bit of extra slip angle or a little enthusiastic throttle use in the right time and place isn't an issue.

WhiskeyBob, show some respect, funeral vehicles can hold traffic up, but having a go at undertakers is not on. Yes I know what you meant. If I am in the left lane with nothing in front for a few minutes of driving time and there is someone sat in the middle lane I will sometimes just stay in the left lane and overtake them there. There is a chance they will pull to the left, but then there is a chance they will pull to the right, at least on the left hand side I have a hard shoulder to use.

It does worry me somewhat that they will try to enforce this automatically and if you get, for instance, a vehicle pull into your lane right in front of you just before you pass a camera you will end up with a NIP through the post for tailgating.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 03:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7361
Location: Highlands
The more I think about the more ill thought out this whole concept is, sadly. It seems to miss the whole premiss of 'be a responsible and safe driver' and should we see you do anything less than that, and / or disobeying the rules of the road, then we will come over and have a chat or a lot more ... type of productive action.
This just makes the Police Judge and Jury the "see you, do you", no chance or get out of jail card.

I know other Countries have on the spot fines but you don't lose a quarter of your driving licence when you get one !
With SO little education over the last 20yrs, all that is at the forefront of peoples minds while driving is the speed is everything concept, and whilst I welcome a retunr to the Police on the roads, it seems slightly strange to re-introduce police with hosts of ways to NIP a motorist unless some of the revenue from the courses is to be filtered back into funding the Police on the roads ? That of course has it's own problems.

MANY people now tailgate to deliberately avoid the 'line of sight' of cameras (perhaps this is the reason to add that NIP!??), and in variable speed limit and average camera zones since everyone is travelling at very similar speeds they will earn a fortune then NIPping people for tailgating. I am sure they will try to automate these potential Nips if they can !
However IF they do introduce, well trained officers, who do apply this to ONLY those who truly mis-behave and there are really crystal clear guidelines then it may do some real good as Police on the roads is a very good thing indeed. :)

Why do we need all these new NIPs? If it is to then 'be indoctrinated' into their mindset and pay for that then the SpeedScam Industry is (as expected) going to continue to run road safety ensuring they line their pockets along the way!

Regarding the make shift skid pan - what a shame that the local Council isn't encouraging some use for some wasteland somewhere, clearly they are going to be some of the safest drivers on the road if they happen to skid as they will be instinctively controlling their vehicles (potentially) perfectly. I really wish there were Councils who would actively encourage 'car parks' where learning about drivers skills was really and seriously encouraged ! And obviously away from residential areas as much as possible! :)

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 08:16 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
I'm not really too bothered about this as, from what I've read, it will depend on police patrols actually pulling people over at the time of the alleged offence, which is surely in general a good thing. There won't be any additional resources, so all that will happen is that the drivers who are currently being pulled over anyway will be given the option of a fixed penalty rather than having to be taken to court as at present. And, given the paucity of traffic police, not much of it is going to happen.

What would be of great concern is using cameras to enforce careless driving fixed penalties - as here with drivers who enter advance stop line boxes at junctions. I don't think that's a points offence, though.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 19:38 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 14:42
Posts: 20
Quote:
Regarding the make shift skid pan - what a shame that the local Council isn't encouraging some use for some wasteland somewhere, clearly they are going to be some of the safest drivers on the road if they happen to skid as they will be instinctively controlling their vehicles (potentially) perfectly. I really wish there were Councils who would actively encourage 'car parks' where learning about drivers skills was really and seriously encouraged ! And obviously away from residential areas as much as possible!


I will tell you a little story - I was raised and learned to drive in the far north of Scotland. Winters in them thar days were proper winters and a friend and I were out and about in his dad's Volvo 140 one evening. It had been snowing heavily and the streets of the town were pretty deserted. We spotted the local car park was empty of any cars with a nice deep cover of snow so ventured down onto it.
We spent about 20 minutes, taking turns behind the wheel, driving around the car park, practicing low speed skid control. Out of the darkness at the edge of the car park appeared the figure of one of the local constabulary who walked towards us, now sat stationary in the middle. "Evening lads, what you up to then?" he asked as he arrived alongside. We explained we were honing our snow driving skills to which he replied "That's good to see - be careful though and if any other vehicles come onto the car park you'll stop, won't you?". We said we'd had enough and were just leaving and he bid us safe driving and a good night.
As we drove back across the town bridge we looked back down onto the car park and there sliding around in our tracks was the police van (Escort I think) - obviously just keeping their snow skills as finely honed as ours!!!! :bluelight: :drive1:

I agree that experience of skid pans and control of vehicles in skids is a valuable one, having done several driving courses over the years - but sadly the loons arsing around the village and local town are just racing each other or doing doughnuts (or "drifting" as it seems to now be called) - quite how they can afford to replace their tyres after burning them down to the cords beats me. Young driver's insurance is usually sky high and if they get done for dangerous driving or driving without due care it will go even higher - that, and the risk they might lose their licence if they get more than six points within 2 years of getting their licence. Those sorts of 'risks' alone should make them more careful drivers but I expect they won't even think about them until they get a tug from PC McGarry No.452.... :bluelight:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 23:37 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7361
Location: Highlands
I totally agree that Police on the road is a good thing, but I worry that motorists feel got at and SOME of these points might be easily zealously Nipped for and further divide the public and police - not something we want to see.
Some of the links the BBC video has shows drivers being a bit cheeky and they think all those manoeuvres are subject o £100 fines. They are not good driving but they are not too horrendous, a tug and a word would likely see a motorist behave better in the future and this is the problem it is unclear what will and wont be considered good and bad behaviour! I would not have considered from the description that it was to include any 'cut-up' but those at junctions ...
It must be really clear.

But placing well trained police back on the roads, is a very good thing for road safety.
If they clear up the confusing new rules and remove some the silly ones like queue jumping / overtaking etc then they might get the respect they desire, and it may slowly improve road safety in time.
Trust is broken and it need repairing ... changing one's fundamental right to a day in Court is a major change.
Are the Police ready for this change ... in many cases no, so much re-training is needed although attainable.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 23:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7361
Location: Highlands
£60 fines and CCTV crackdown on drivers who stop in bike boxes at traffic lights
Encroaching: CCTV could be used to catch traffic in bike boxes, which are designed to protect cyclists by giving them a head-start on other traffic
Ross Lydall Chief News Correspondent 29 May 2013

Drivers who stop in bicycle boxes at traffic lights face fines of £60 and three penalty points on their licences as City Hall plans a crackdown.
Boris Johnson’s cycling czar Andrew Gilligan wants Transport for London to enforce “advance stop lines” with CCTV cameras in a similar way to bus lanes.
He believes this will help to protect cyclists by guaranteeing them a head-start on other traffic and will indicate to drivers the need to show cyclists greater “respect”.
Mr Gilligan said TfL was “pretty close” to securing a change in the law to decriminalise the offences — meaning it could take responsibility from the Met for enforcement. The purpose of ASLs and mandatory lanes is to give cyclists protected space,” Mr Gilligan told the Standard.
“We know how many cars go into advance stop boxes — probably more than 50 per cent of the time. Maybe they don’t known they are meant to stay out of them.
“At present, you have to have a police officer standing at the junction or in a police car. What we can do is stick a camera up and do automatic enforcement. That will sort out the problem.”

The plan to enforce bike lanes — with fines of £30 for drivers entering them — and ASLs is at the top of a list of TfL’s “legislative wants” that would remove often obscure rules that Mr Gilligan believes prevent TfL from making roads safer for cyclists. TfL is to ask the Department for Transport to pass a “commencement order” to allow it to penalise drivers who breach ASLs and mandatory cycle lanes, which are marked with a solid white border.

But this could also turn into a huge moneyspinner for TfL. It already issues about 20,000 fines a year to motorists who drive in bus lanes, and 140,000 a year for “moving traffic offences” such as stopping in yellow boxes in the centre of junctions.
Mr Gilligan, who denied reports that his £913 million cycling budget was at risk from expected cuts in TfL’s government grant, said: “We think if we enforce mandatory cycle lanes and ASLs, there will be much more compliance. Compliance with bus lanes has gone up dramatically.
“People avoid them even when they don’t have to. We want to do exactly the same [with cycle lanes].”

Cycling campaigner Jenny Jones, a Green member of the London Assembly, said: “Rather than posting a police officer at every traffic light, it would seem sensible to treat ASLs in the same way as we treat yellow boxes or bus lanes, so that we can use cameras to enforce this safety measure.”

Lawyer Kevin O’Sulivan, who represents cyclists injured in road collisions, said: “If this fining of motorists for breaching ASLs and cycle lanes goes ahead, it will mean that motorists are thinking about the presence of cyclists generally, which will be another step forward for cycle safety.”

I have posted this in here as it covers many of the same issues and points.
I don't get it though, as you are allowed to stop in the bike area the HC states that you can ... it allows for late stopping. Did they change this and if they did why has it not bee widely publicised ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 00:23 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 14:42
Posts: 20
Quote:
£913 million cycling budget



:shock: :o :loco:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 09:31 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Quote:
He believes this will help to protect cyclists by guaranteeing them a head-start on other traffic and will indicate to drivers the need to show cyclists greater “respect”.

So, why do cyclists need a "head start on other traffic"? Perhaps drivers would be more sympathetic to cyclists if they waited in line like everyone else has to. Maybe it's cyclists who need to show other road users more respect rather than expecting it from everyone else.

Yes. £913M is absolutely ridiculous.

BTW, is Andrew Gilligan the ex-journalist at the BBC?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 09:46 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
malcolmw wrote:
BTW, is Andrew Gilligan the ex-journalist at the BBC?

I don't think so - that Andrew Gilligan now works for the Sunday Telegraph.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:07 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
malcolmw wrote:
Quote:
He believes this will help to protect cyclists by guaranteeing them a head-start on other traffic and will indicate to drivers the need to show cyclists greater “respect”.

So, why do cyclists need a "head start on other traffic"? Perhaps drivers would be more sympathetic to cyclists if they waited in line like everyone else has to. Maybe it's cyclists who need to show other road users more respect rather than expecting it from everyone else.

Yes. £913M is absolutely ridiculous.

BTW, is Andrew Gilligan the ex-journalist at the BBC?


I generally only filter to the front if:
a) there is time to safely do so
b) there is space to safely do so
c) there isn't a pinch point immediately after the junction (that i can't make it through ahead of the traffic)

staying in line is an option i often take (in primary), in some scenarios however i then cause traffic behind to miss an opportunity at the lights (or maybe just perceive that they have) as they have to stay behind me until they can (hopefully) safely pass which is not always possible approaching lights or in a multilane scenario.

so filtering to the front motorists often feel hard done by that you get in front... staying behind they often feel like you are deliberately obstructing them. maybe i should just take the car.


(PS in my case neither of the above is usually an issue as i can generally keep up with queuing traffic and/or make it across the junction before them... but having ridden with knackered legs and/or slower/leisure cyclists this becomes a different ball game)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.346s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]