Safe Speed Forums

I'm having a quite incredible amount of difficulty in persuading myself to think that a scheme which would allow "the overlords would know who was driving what, where and when" could even remotely be described as "attractive"... I'm all for getting drunk drivers off the roads, but if the cost of doing so is for every driver to be monitored 24/7 then I'm not so sure it's a price worth paying.


Besides, how would this scheme of yours prevent the "buy a throwaway" method of evading detection? It wouldn't make the slightest difference if every single vehicle was tagged and monitored, because that alone still wouldn't show whether the driver was drunk or not - only the alcolock would do that, and so you'd need to fit one to every vehicle...

...but if you're going to do that, then you don't need to also tag the location of each vehicle, because now if every vehicle is alcolocked then the drink driver can't simply buy themselves a cheap throwaway.

Nor am I - my selfishness kicks in. I don't drive much after 6, so I'm not, presently, at great risk from drunks. Its attractive to the overlords, who we have entrusted to govern us.



I am not advocating alcolocks, I am merely pointing out that some of the problems listed have technical solutions. Other's don't. As an aside, I have little doubt that shortly all new cars will have biometric keys and RF transponders. Location tagging would be on by default, where you need it or not, because it has (almost) zero cost, apart from data capacity. With modern tapes able to hold 400 gig per cartridge or more, and falling in price towards the £15 range, even that is a small constraint.

They may inhibit some people due to their psychological effects. A certain amount of uncertainty could also be introduced, where any hint of alcohol in the car at even the lowest levels triggers an alert to the local patrol, who might think its worth a spot check, especially if it is around 11:00 pm. Again, low incremental costs once road side RF is commonplace makes this more plausible.

_________________
I stole this .sig

As a pedestrian, cyclist or bus user you are - or do you not get out much?

_________________
Keep right on to the end of the road ...

The latter. I live in a small, isolated village some 20 miles from a large town. I commute in and out once a day and that's it. Kids have to be in bed by 7 or 7:30, anyway, so scope for raves is very limited even at weekends.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Not according to the highway code. Cameras impose the absolute top limit, and even add a little margin to that for calibration issues. The code makes it clear drivers should set their speed safely within the absolute top limit.

The code also contains other information, from which I have roughly worked out as follows. In the average lifetime of a driver, an amount of people equivalent to half the population of Liverpool would be killed by car accidents and an amount of people equivalent to a third of the population of London would be seriously injured by car accidents. In a family of four, there is a 1 in fifty chance that one of them will be killed by a car accident, and a one in 5 that one will suffer serous injuries.

Figures like this are usually associated with world wars! We have only accepted it so far because it is (literally) smeared over a lifetime.

_________________
I stole this .sig

The problem is that the operators of the cameras don't enforce "The Highway Code", they enforce a rigidly mechanical interpretation of a tiny part of it. The message is loud and clear "stick to the speed limits and we'll leave you alone", and when you look at the way the limits are now enforced this is the only clear interpretation.

Like you, I don't do a massive amount of night-time driving at present, as I too have to have the kids in bed early. But on Saturday we took them to see Blackpool lights for a treat, so returned about 10.30pm. On the way back I saw two drivers who (in my judgement) had clearly been drinking. In both instances they were travelling inappropriately slowly and erratically, periodically weaving from kerb to white line. But it seems that this behaviour is perfectly acceptable under the current regime, as long as they aren't breaking the speed limit (which they clearly weren't) then they are more or less immune from prosecution.


I'm not sure what your point is here. Can I take it that you agree we perhaps need to start tackling the real causes of accidents then?

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

It's odd that you use the words 'rigidly mechanical' in a disparaging way. It would be a simple thing to adjust cameras to work in a fuzzy, probabilistic way, only registering random selections of speeding drivers - is that what you mean, because that is the outcome when you use (only too few) coppers to round up inconsiderate speed merchants?



Then campaign for messages, not against cameras. Nowhere has any message been sent (loud and clear or otherwise) that you are safe within the limit.



Hm, that is quite bad.



No, this behaviour is unacceptable under the current regime, and it is worse if they breaking the speed limit. If, as you say, they are immune from prosecution, then that is something to campaign for. I am not in favour of less policing, just more effective policing, if possible paid for by the offenders themselves.



Yes, we must start tackling the real causes of accidents. Many accidents happen when drivers are unable to avoid them in time, so speed appears to be a factor in both reactability and severity of crashes. As speed is one of the only parameters that is simple and cheap to measure remotely, that is a good focus point. I am also opposed to speed in built up areas due to the noise pollution fast cars create.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Certainly we have too few skilled traffic police on patrol, but that's an issue in it's own right.

But suppose we had 50,000 traffic police distributed around 375,000 km of roads. On average there would be one every 7.5 km or 4.7 miles. The average 10,000 miles per year driver would pass one traffic officer every 5 miles and would pass some 2,000 each year.

I confess the figures are guesses (except our total road length) And I know that certain roads have far more traffic and could have far greater proportion of Police and so would up the rate of observation.

The way these number work shows how many times the police can get a chance to observe an habitually careless or reckless driver. And they have an excellent record of identifying problem drivers (and car borne criminals for that matter).

Back to the original point... Those traffic officers can spot reckles speeders a mile off and deal with them. We don't need fuzzy logic. We need intelligence. We don't need to nick most motorists - we need to nick a few percent of problem motorists.

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

basingwerk wrote:


Using meaningless numbers to support an emotive soundbite detracts from some of your more reasoned posts. Think again - In the average lifetime of a driver, an amount of people equivalent to the entire population of the country are definitely going to die. And most of us simply accept it because by definition thats what a lifetime is.[/list][/quote][/b]

I reminded you of this point when I wrote that that it is only acceptable because it is (literally) smeared over a lifetime. Your logic seems to be that pointless deaths on a massive scale are terrible if they happen at once, and of no consequence at all if they happen over a long timescale. Please explain.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Meanwhile in the USA .... 29 year old man claims he passed out after blowing into one of these devices.

The US device requires a series of random breath tests whilst you are driving ... Apparently, the device requires users to blow into it for as long as 6 seconds and manufacturers say the driver should pull over in heavy traffic to perform this task.

Sounds like this creates more problems than it seeks to remedy to me. Not saying things are perfect - because they clearly are not. Even my patch has them slip through the nets and we are at least present on the roads...


Recidivist drink driver Jason Reali is a heavy smoker and blew so hard into his device whilst driving that he crashed into a tree.

Another vicitim (heavens - aged .... 79 years claims this violate the Disabilities Act. She sufferes from shortness of breath and cannot blow into the wretched thing.... Know why I would do with the old biddy - and devices do not feature ...

Sure - there is no easy answer - but cannot see how this gadget is bee knees. Still think my lads do a good job.

We do catch drunks and drugged drivers around here - and these are people who cause the most accidents - not the careful driver who may be marginally above the limit - and I ahem - use discretion ....

I'm not sure how to take that comment. FYI, there are genuine cases where people are fit to drive but medically unable to take a breathalyser test (I know someone who passed her DVLA medical for taxi work yet has a lung condition that prevents her from supplying a breath sample if breathalysed). These people are fit to drive under the DVLA medical rules and should not be barred because some device can't cope.

I do hope that I did not detect a rather cras and ageist remark in your post. Some people do retain their faculties into their eighties as witnessed by the number of octogenarians who still hold a private pilot's license. These people have to pass a regular medical far more stringent than the DVLA medical, and so must exceed the minimum medical standard for driving. Don't forget also that you need to pass regular medicals to continue driving past the age of 70. So, unlike most younger drivers, the over 70's have proved they're medically fit to hold a license!

_________________
Will

Er, no you don't. All you have to do is self-certify every three years that you are fit to drive when renewing your licence.

_________________
"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

As I understood it, you self-certify but your doctor must countersign to say that they know of no condition to preclude license renewal. Many doctors won't countersign unless they've seen you recently and so insist on an examination before signing. That's certainly the situation for the NPPL, which is supposed to mirror the DVLA medical requirements. If my understanding is wrong, I stand corrected. However, my comment that there are plenty of octogenarians who are medically fit to drive is valid. From IG's post, I inferred prejudice against the elderly. While I agree that faculties generally diminish with age, it is by no means universally true and we must view each case on its own merit.

_________________
Will

I do agree - that is why I posted this piece of information which came to me via a US based relative of ours. (We are a big family )

In fact - Wildcat (our mad lad's wife ) finds blowing into my breathalyser "impossible Liebchen" " Her lung capacity just cannot cope with this and she simply carries a card which she would present if stopped in a routine. She only drinks "saucers of milk" as she calls it anyway - so has little to fear . One of these contraptions would be a no-no as far as she is concerned.

I would also be inclined to agree with the US protestors here - insofar as the requirement for the random test whilst you are driving can be dangerous - particularly where it stops the car automatically.



Oops! My own Dad is 79 and still drives well - as does my mother who is a couple of years younger. I did not intend it to read as it apparently does - just a lowly copper - not in same intellectual league as my cousins ..... and our mad doc here ...

"Miss Daisy" in the original article from a US local paper has been convictedof drink driving nor less than three times in her driving career. This is why she was ordered to use the device. I find it strange - given her age that she was allowed to continue driving in view of this past tendency to drink and drive.


As far as being "medically fit" is concerned - Peter is correct. Both my parents simply have to sign that they are medically fit when they renew their licence. If there is a history of medical illness - that is when the doctor countersigns the document.

WildCat's parents (over 70 and living in Switzerland) have to submit to a full medical each year. The French have just introduced a compulsory medical for all 65 years olds and Germany is about to make an announcement along similar lines as far as I can make out from German press article. (I am UK born and bred - and envy Wildy and the rest of them who can just switch languages and read all other sources of information)

Personally I would welcome any such legislation here. I know what my cousin actually went through after being hit by someone who was taken ill behind the wheel of his car.

I have also seen every kind of accident you can care to mention in varying degrees of nastiness - and all down to the full spectrum of causes. I will not deny that the speed of a vehicle affects the overall outcome - but speed does not actually cause the accident. It does, however, affect the outcome. If we can possibly get across to people that they should not operate machinery such as a car if they feel unfit to do so - then we will be doing much to help improve concept of road safety for all.

Education - Education - Education