Safe Speed Forums

Ian,

I applaud your decision and only wish coppers over here had a similar attitude. Unfortunately our TOG (Traffic Operations Group) officers have to undergo a humour lobotomy as a prerequisite to joining this group and offer little or no leeway on speeding.

I have been "let off" a speeding offence where I was travelling at about 20kph over the limit by a country cop (not TOG) who booked me $50 & no points for not having a current registration sticker after a pleasant chat at the side of the road for a while.

This action on his behalf elicited nothing but respect from me because he also commented that although I was over the limit I was driving "safely". I did not drive away thinking "Sucker", I genuinely felt good that there were police out there that were more interested in safety than speed.

As to the debate on passing speeds my attitude is to slow down to about 10-15kph faster than the other vehicle if that vehicle has other vehicles in front of it and about 20-25kph if the road ahead is clear. I then speed up again after getting past. In this way I fell that I am safer than passing at a higher speed and risking a nasty sideswipe.

This is not to say that I always drive a lot faster than the other traffic. I do so on occasions when circumstances indicate it is safe.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

I think I might just have been involved in that original debate...

I suppose the simplest example is if we are overtaking a lorry on a dual carriageway road, with no other vehicles present. To my mind there are 3 distinct phases to the operation, as regards the risk of "sideswiping", let us call these:

"Phase A", when we are approaching from behind, and the combination of our speed & distance is such that we can still brake and avoid the lorry should it pull out unexpectedly.
"Phase B" is when the requirements of "Phase A" are no longer met, and we are committed to the overtake but unable to avoid the lorry should it suddenly pull out.
"Phase C" is when we our combination of speed and position is such that we can accelerate safely past the lorry should it pull out.

Some observations that seem to arise from this are:
1. Phase B is the only part where there is a collision risk, and should be minimised,
2. Phase A is diminished by a faster approach speed. But...
3. Phase B is diminished by a faster overtake speed. Somewhere there must be an optimum value.
4. A slow approach and a fast overtake improves both ideals.
5. Phase A lasts longer than you think, even well into the part where the vehicles are overlapped.
6. More lateral space extends phase A, as the driver has more time to brake out of danger before the lorry hits him,
7. More lateral space makes phase C happen sooner, as the driver has more time to accelerate out of danger before the lorry hits him
8. Certain combinations of approach speed, overtaking speed and vehicle positioning will make A and C overlap, which eradicates the danger completely. This is clearly an obvious aim.

With respect to the issue of overtaking multiple vehicles, I think point 4 is crucial. I must admit I found it very illuminating to sit down and consider the "geometry" of this, as in the following:

Another classic scenario, the lone slow vehicle way in front that you want to pass before this bit of dual carriageway ends in half a mile, after which we know there is ten miles of S/C. So we close the gap as fast as possible, so by the time we are close to the vehicle there is now a massive speed differential. I often find myself actually braking as I get close to the slow moving vehicle before accelerating again to overtake. I always thought this was just timidity on my part, but now it seems to make perfect sense. The braking extends "phase A", making the commitment point later than it would otherwise B, then the following acceleration brings "phase C" closer, so the net result is the minimum "phase B". So what I've been doing by instinct actually seems to make perfect logical sense.

This is one scenario where I feel strict enforcement can be detrimental. With no perceived risk of a speeding ticket we might sprint along at (say) 80mph to catch the 40mph lorry up, gaining valuable space and time in order to slow to 55 or 60 as we approach it, then accelerate back to 75 as we overtake. But if we feel there might be a speed camera about we'll simply do the whole maneuvre at 70, which robs us of the time we'd have gained on the approach, so now we haven't the time or space to be able to afford the luxury of braking to extend "phase A", nor can we accelerate again to bring "phase C" closer - instead we cruise past at a steady 70 with both ends of the "exposed" phase B extended.

I guess speed limiters have exactly the same effect.

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

No, Peyote, mate - he was observed driving responsibly and safely about 20 mph above the legal limit.

Both myself and my wife exceed speed limits on odd occasions on a UK motorway - and my wife really shows how capable she is in Germany. We drive well in excess of 70 mph over there - and above 70 mph in France, Italy, Austria....

UK drivers are just as capable of driving in excess of 70- mph as EU ones. In fact, our motorways are better designed and thus safer as an average.

I think it was a good call - and the driver probably will continue to drive in same safe manner as normal.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

When passing another car. part of your vehicle is alongside for approximately three car-lengths, and you'll cover that distance in about one and a half seconds at a speed differential of 20mph. You're in danger for approx. one point five seconds and, unless he swerves over violently, it's likely to take him longer than about one second to move over far enough to hit you - so you're fairly safe.
It also takes approx. one second to scrub off 20mph under hard braking which, allowing for half a second reaction time, means that you'll probably be OK if he starts moving over beore you get within one and a half seconds of him. So, in either eventuality, you're really only in 'no man's land' for about half a second - and you may have the option of swerving around the other side anyway. Whereas if you pass at a speed differential of 5mph, you're spending a full six seconds in the danger zone. Or 30 seconds with a 1mph differential - collecting a whole queue of road-ragers behind you
I take your point about passing more cars at a higher speed, but it won't be six times as many and, even so, you're spending a good deal more time with nothing next to you. Could the SMIDSY phenomenon perhaps have a lot to do with that people just don't expect anyone to pass them? If so, the more people that pass them the less they'll do it.
When it comes to lorries, the only real consideration is getting past as quickly as possible. If he comes over he'll crush you to a pulp without even feeling it. I'd rather risk running into the back of him at about 10mph.
I once calculated that the optimum speed for passing a 20-metre lorry is around 87 to 90mph.

:Edited for a temporary lapse in mental capability

Regards
Peter

I think I spot an earlier mental construct where you have justified to yourself an excessive degree of faith in the speed limit.

The rapid increase in danger as speed becomes inappropriate totally swamps the increase in danger at increasing yet still appropriate speeds.

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

There is an optimal speed differential - 20 seems round about the correct amount.

There can be too much or too little. Too much and the chap who is about to pull out to overtake may not clock your closing velocity by a quick glance in the mirror. Too little and the sorts of problems dealt with above start to happen.

What I don't like is when you get a car that is in the outside lane of the motorway doing 70 that is overtaking a vehicle in the middle lane doing 69.5mph.

If we used our flashing head lights as they were intended, we would also have another safety measure, when passing.

_________________
Steve

Hmm, my post was a bit of a knee jerk reaction. I'm still not sure what to think, but I respect the Police and it's your job so I'm not going to criticise. If you want criticism maybe post on another forum?

You may be right Paul. Not many trafpol will get this level of intellectual insight into the effects, both positive and negative, of speed.
I must admit, my previous fairly tolerant view of motorway speeding usually involved the punch line 'I'm not saying that speeding will cause you to crash more often, however the seriousness of impact is likely to be much greater'. This usually met with fairly numb agreement, and a general acceptance of guilt and 3 points.
I've always looked at aggravating factors when evidencing a speeding offence, so I don't think the offender group I deal with has changed. I do think they may now get a slightly more enlightened view of their misdemeanor and how to correct it.

Having said all that I'd still like to see an upper limit above which speed is a factor completely on it's own. I'd suggest somewhere around 95mph as my own tolerance limit. This might not be completely enlightened, but I do not think that there is any safety dividend from higher speeds (other than perhaps less time exposed to danger), and I can think of many reasons why it would be more dangerous. Overtaking much slower moving vehicles would be just one of those reasons.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

I'm not sure what the difference is between what you've typed MM, and what I typed?



Yeah, I know, you've said before.



I'm not going to disagree with you, I have the utmost respect for your opinions MM!

No, I have not always have obeyed the law in every respect, Far from it - I'm from north Wales! But nowadays I try to. I don't think I've broken the law much lately.

I bet this bloke was having a laugh in the pub after IanH left him off, telling his mates about how he'd done a ton, and then soft soaped a traffic cop into the bargain. Or maybe not, but in any case, cops should make thier decision to do 'em before they talk to 'em, otherwise slippery smooth talkers will have the edge over them.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I'm sure IanH reported the conversation verbatim. I'm sure that the driver picked up on IanH's professionalism as did IanH on the driver's hence the nature of the exchange.

Had the traffic cop indicated a 'lowest common denominator' or a PC 'zero tolerance enforcement' of law view, his response might have been less honest and open. Mine certainly would have been affected.

Discretion HAS to take the attitude of the driver into account otherwise the trafpol would have been little better than the camera's which we here and many of them despise.

Thanks for your candid admission that you can be or at least have been selective about which laws you adhere to and which you presumably disagree with. The difference between us is which ones.

If I go with that, a driver who is cunning enough could talk his way out of a 100 mph ticket - should they be rewarded like this, while drivers who lack cunning are hammered?



OK.... all I'm saying is that cops have to be careful about sweet talkers. Once, on my Kawasaki Triple many, many years ago, I was doing a bit of posing up and down the high street, popping wheelies, showing off, swerving, you know the kind of thing. Anyway, a cop stopped me and got out the ticket book. But I cunningly told her that the reason I swerved was because I was switching to my reserve fuel tank, and she bought it! Now that I am a reformed character, and despise such antics, I can tell a smooth operator when I see one!



I adhere to laws which affect safety and basic rights to a nice life. I hate violence, or people who let thier dogs poo in the park or speed in thier cars, or drop litter etc. Or pop wheelies to show off to the girls!

_________________
I stole this .sig

:lol: What you were doing wasn't funny, but the plod falling for that excuse certainly is.

So you didn't pull then? Actually, does that ever work?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I have to say that I am absolutely 100% in favour of police discretion, and have been lucky enough to have been lectured in "that tone of voice" once or twice.

In this case though, there are two things in Ian's post that make me think that the driver in this case might just have got away with a little too much.

Firstly, his comment that he did not know what speed he was driving at. I would suggest that he knew exactly what speed he was doing, and that was just under 100mph as indicated on HIS speedometer. He may well have been thinking I will take the chance at getting pulled, but not at more than 100mph, which would be a banning offence.

Secondly, his comment that he did not realise that he had been followed for two and a half miles. Even at 90mph, two and a half miles is 1 min 30 seconds or more. He may not have known that Ian was driving a police car, but surely if he was paying attention to his mirrors he should have known that he had been followed by the same car for that length of time?

Anyway, the judgement call made by Ian was that the driver was driving safely for the road and conditions, and that really is what matters most, and in this respect I have to applaud Ian on his decision.

Just my opinions of course,

Russ








[/i]

The way I read it he was let off because of his driving not his talking.

So you can tell but an experienced police officer is incapable of being able to tell.

Get over yourself, the guy was let off because he was driving SAFELY and his attitude and rhetoric backed up the observations of the officer.

Ian has obviously had a lot of experience and I’m sure can tell when he is being smooth talked!

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

You could well be right. Most people will not say what speed they were doing. They will have a rough idea, but they will hope that your recording of their speed was at the lower end of their average speed. But he didn't try to say "About seventy officer, I'm sure it was, no more than seventy five"


I was 600 metres back. The road wasn't empty. The speeds were not 'excessive'. It would be quite reasonable for the driver not to be too phased by another car doing the same speed. I closed up to 200 - 300 metres behind and he was straight down to 75. I can follow 2 seconds behind many drivers at those speeds (any speed - even with blues and twos on ), and they fail to notice you.
I felt it was appropriate to talk to the chap about his speed. 99.99% probably more of speeding offences go undetected, so I felt that this chap should get some kind of credit for 'speeding safely'. He will feel in his mind that he got a bit of a break, and I hope he will gain from that.



Sweet talkers and smooth operators are really quite easy to tell.

Firstly, and I'm sure most of my colleagues are the same, I already have my mind made up about what I plan to offer the driver when I speak to him. Often, no matter what he/she says, they will get a ticket. Often its a word of advice, which may end up being a ticket because thing haven't quite gone as planned .
In this case I had evidenced an offence seriously mitigated by good driving, so I decided to check the driver's driving attitude to see if it matched what I saw. It did, hence no ticket.
Smooth talkers usually say what they expect us to want to hear. Their excuses or mitigation is usually contrary to what I've witnessed. Usually it's something like "Oh I'm really sorry to have inconvenienced you officer, I was sure I was doing seventy, perhaps a little more, but I was simply following the traffic, you know what it's like"
It's Bullpoo, and quite easy to distinguish from the truth.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Thanks for the tips on how to conduct oneself to a police officer. If the cop didn’t appear susceptible to anything cunning (e.g. I’m new in the area/on holiday/visiting sick relation, had a hot curry and need to go to the toilet, having a heart attack etc.) I'd try a bit of pleading and begging for mercy, or even, as last resort, turn on the water works - even a hard bitten cop might feel some sympathy for a driver reduced to tears, explaining that if they loose their license, they won't be able to visit poor Johnny in the orphanage! Does it do any good to show deep remorse straight away, or would that be OTT! Anyway, from what you are saying, it's seems a better policy is to maintain one's dignity and face up to what one has done, and perhaps a bit of man to man eye contact can win the day!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Thanks IanH for your post it pretty much restores my faith in the police. I only wish I had of had the presence of mind to explain myself when I was stopped under similar circumstances. Only the officer was by the side of the road and had no time to observe my driving. I was doing 93 on a dual carriageway, the traffic volume was low the weather and road conditions were perfect. I felt at the time whilst sat in the patrol car that I had a window of opportunity to give a satisfactory explanation for my speed - I failed However on reflection I pretty much came to the conclusion that what he wanted to hear was pretty much what your guy said to you. So thanks for confirming that one. I still maintain that I was driving safely and the reason he managed to aim the gun at me was because I had such a large gap infront of me.

However I was dismayed to see you wishing for Speed cameras on motorways. Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!! They tried that on the M6 north of Brum and thankfully removed them again. As we all know the major cause of accidents on Motorways (Which are incredibly safe roads) is tail end shunts caused by sudden braking and the failure to read the sudden braking. So how about tackling tailgating and inattention instead of introducing a reason to brake suddenly!

Max

_________________
Tailgaters - Please Pass
You have an Accident to go to!