Safe Speed Forums

I think we should all fax our mps this weekend... unless that would weaken your strategy Paul?

Dear [MP]

I write seeking your important and ugent assistance over a matter that comes before the House this coming Monday – probably very shortly after you see this letter. Please accept my apologies for such a short notice missive, which is not my usual style, but I only discovered the calamitous nature of things just a few minutes ago.

The Road Safety Bill is in the Commons on Monday for its third and final reading. This includes graduated fixed penalties for speeding offences, with the corollary that licence loss might occur after just TWO 6-point camera offences. The further corollary of this is that just a single speeding offence will turn otherwise competent drivers into speedo-gazers. It has been recently admitted by the DfT that the lion’s share of injury/fatal accidents on the road are caused by poor concentration/distraction. The speedo is a distraction – and a big one. Unlike, eg, a glance in the mirror or up a side road, where the eye remains focussed at distance, a speedo-check takes the best part of a full second as the eye has to focus close to see it and then focus distant again to see the real hazards.

This bill has such a fatal flaw in it, that a vote to condone it is as good as pulling the trigger on thousands of road casualties (including pedetrians and cyclists). I exaggerate not.

I urge you to put this point on my behalf at the hearing and to vote vehemently against the bill without substantial modification to eliminate this aspect.

Thank you for reading this plea and for any action you may take to prevent the rot setting in.

Yours sincerely

I believe that MPs are being mislead by Ministers about the details of the
graduated speeding penalty proposals in the Road Safety Bill to be debated on
Monday.

It hinges around the content of the table that relates speeds to penalties by
speed limit.

It has emerged that there are serious problems drafting the table of speeds
and penalties. These problems arise from the need to be able to confirm that a
threshold has been exceeded to get into the next higher band. Effectively it
is necessary to have a speed that is 'ACPO threshold above'[*] the desired
speed in order that a court of law could be convinced that the offence
described had actually taken place.

This would lead to a table of penalties that many MPs may not feel able to
agree to.

So the bill enables the Secretary of State to create the graduated penalty
table 'later' and to amend it 'as required'.

MPs do not know about these problems and are being conned.

If there is a way to demand that the table should be presented to MPs, then
the problems could be highlighted and discussed.

[*] ACPO publishes a prosecution threshold for speed limit offences, advising
that no one should be prosecuted unless the recorded speed exceeds the speed
limit + 10% + 2mph. This isn't out of kindness or generosity. It is entirely
necessary due to accumulated tolerances in measurement apparatus. If, for
example, we tried to prosecute someone for going 1mph over a speed limit, a
proper argument in court would conclude that it could not be proven that an
offence had been committed AT ALL because the 1mph excess might be an error in
the means of measurement.

I think you missed the point Roger!

I saw that point, and the one I made.

I think BOTH points are valid - and I think (but am not certain) mine is easier for my MP to understand.

Do you think I should adapt your point as well, or instead? Or do you think that the two separate points coming from both directions would be a good two-pronger?

Dear [MP]

I write seeking your important and ugent assistance over a matter that comes before the House this coming Monday – probably very shortly after you see this letter. Please accept my apologies for such a short notice missive, which is not my usual style, but I only discovered the calamitous nature of things just a few minutes ago.


The Road Safety Bill is in the Commons on Monday for its third and final reading. This includes the aspect of graduated fixed penalties for speeding offences. This brings with it two aspects.that I am convinced mean it needs a fundamental rethink and should be voted out in its present form.

Firstly, I believe that MPs are being mislead by spin from the DfT. Legal problems hinge around the content of the table that relates speeds to penalties by speed limit. There have been serious problems drafting the table of speeds and penalties. These problems arise from the need to be able to confirm that a threshold has been exceeded to get into the next higher band of penalties by a significan margin, presently 10% plus 2mph. To achieve this, it would be necessary to have a speed that is substantially lower than the desired speed of prosecution to accommodate that safety margin in order that a court of law could be convinced that the offence described had actually taken place. This would lead to a table of penalties that many MPs may not feel able to agree to. Given these difficulties, the bill is drafted so as to enable the Secretary of State to create the graduated penalty retrospectively and amend it 'as required'. At the appropriate time in the reading of the bill, I would urge you to request that the table be presented so that these problems could be highlighted and discussed.

Secondly, but of my foremost concern, is road safety. Assuming the legalities are overcome and this can be made to work (see later), licence loss might occur after just TWO 6-point camera offences. The corollary of this is that just a single speeding offence will turn otherwise competent drivers into speedo-gazers. It has been recently admitted by the DfT that the lion’s share of injury/fatal accidents on the road are caused by poor concentration/distraction. The speedo is a distraction – and a big one. Unlike, eg, a glance in the mirror or up a side road, where the eye remains focussed at distance, a speedo-check takes the best part of a full second as the eye has to focus close to see it and then focus distant again to see the real hazards.

This is such a fatal flaw in road safety thought that a vote to condone it is as good as pulling the trigger on thousands of road casualties, including cyclists and pedestrians. I exaggerate not. I urge you to put this point on my behalf at the hearing and to vote vehemently against the bill without substantial modification to eliminate this aspect.

Thank you for reading this plea and for any action you may take to prevent the rot setting in.

Yours sincerely

I assumed it would have to be the other way around, ie, if the 30 mph row read (arbitrarily) 35, 40 and 45, that the figures they would have to reach before prosecuting at the tabulated figures would be 40.5, 46 and 51.5 respectively, and that anything below 40.5 would be unenforceable.

To that end, I assumed that the 70mph row might read 75, 85 and 95, giving enforcement thresholds of 84.5, 95.5 and 106.5 respectively (ie, anything less than 84.5 is in the "orange" zone - illegal but not enforced). Have I misread it?

Hi Tim.
Thank you for your recent letter regarding better driver training.
I should like to commend however the people with whom I have discussions on road safety, as it is not something one should tackle alone, and by discussing the matter, we can raise each others knowledge and ideas.
I for one have little experience of variable speed limits on the M40 for instance, but by discussing the situation with others who use that motorway on a daily basis, I was more prepared than some when I passed that way recently on my holidays. In a similar fashion, I can bring knowledge of rural problems to urban motorists keen enough to take them on board.

In a discussion today (Saturday) it has come to light that there is a vote on Monday on the Road Safety Bill, and there is concern that in the wording of the bill, there is a part which seeks to pull the wool over the eyes of MP's. I quote below from a post on the forum, which might well mean more to you, and if there is cause for concern, perhaps you would be able to highlight it to your colleagues.
I believe that MPs are being mislead by Ministers about the details of the
graduated speeding penalty proposals in the Road Safety Bill to be debated on
Monday.
It hinges around the content of the table that relates speeds to penalties by
speed limit.
It has emerged that there are serious problems drafting the table of speeds
and penalties. These problems arise from the need to be able to confirm that a
threshold has been exceeded to get into the next higher band. Effectively it
is necessary to have a speed that is 'ACPO threshold above'[*] the desired
speed in order that a court of law could be convinced that the offence
described had actually taken place.

This would lead to a table of penalties that many MPs may not feel able to
agree to.

So the bill enables the Secretary of State to create the graduated penalty
table 'later' and to amend it 'as required'.

MPs do not know about these problems and are being conned.

The ACPO thresholds have been the basis for "remote enforcement" i.e. speed cameras, and represent the acceptable limits of the equipment to the Association Of Chief Police Officers. However, in some circles there is serious concern over the accuracy of some equipment in everyday use - see this BBC link, and the discussions at the bottom. http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/art ... ture.shtml
I saw the original program, having been long concerned at the reputation the equipment has abroad, as well as in the UK. It strikes me as being very poor that the only expert witness that can be called, has a vested interest in the deployment of the equipment - he sells the equipment to the Home Office through the various police forces! Since this program, there have been others, and tests by national newspapers which highlighted the same concerns.

The threshold limits are likely to be critical as to the number of points a driver might get, and could lead to motorists being found guilty of a more serious offence than they have committed, and losing their license - and livelyhood!
ALL of this is being done in the name of SAFETY, yet DfT figures released last week, show only 5% of accidents were caused by motorists BREAKING the speed limit - the ONLY ones targeted by cameras. Those whose speed is too high but WITHIN the limit go unaddressed - which is the sort of issue which SHOULD be addressed by better training.
Every day, I see vehicles passing the speed cameras at Ings, often at below 30 mph in the 40 mph limit - and then the drivers simply speed up and continue to drive like idiots. Worse still, many drive up to the cameras, then brake hard, while checking the speedo to ensure they are below the limit.The camera site is a crossing for the footpath - and a more dangerous place to look away from the road could not be found, on such a straight section of road, and I see from the letters page of the Gazette that a growing number of the public are beginning to realise this too.

Yours sincerely, E. Marsh, Windermere