Safe Speed Forums

Thanks for your comments Max.

Perhaps you are not aware that for the last two years in Cumbria we have had mobile speed cameras on the Motorway which are currently geared to record at 79mph and over . In my mind this is unreasonable and does nothing for road safety.

I do believe that excessive speed can be perceived as intimidatory and can be dangerous due to the increased momentum should things go badly wrong, ie the SMIDSY sideswipe or blowout etc., which is why I believe that a higher threshold of detection ie over 90 mph, known by the public would be the correct use of these cameras. Those driving slightly above those speeds who are concentrating and observing would be able to trim speed accordingly and avoid penalty. Any other offences should be dealt with by trafpol.

Perceived intimidation on the motorway by excessive speeders and aggressive drivers is the reason why many of our slightly more cautious drivers avoid the motorway and take to the more dangerous A roads instead. It's right that their needs and fears be addressed also.

That is my thinking on the subject, but I agree as much as I would rather have no cameras than ones which were ticketing at 79+.

We do deal with tailgaters, lane two hoggers, tired drivers, inattentive drivers, and those who are being aggressive. They are our bread and butter offences.

I'd personally like to see increased use of fixed penalty system to deal with these DWDCA offences. I think it'd encourage a lot more of my colleagues to penalise careless driving rather than warn for it, which would cause many drivers to pay more attention to their driving.

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

Ian

I'm not entirely convinced that the link between speeding and intimidation is as direct as you imply. I know of one or two cautious drivers who look upon motorway driving as a cause of great horror, but I don't think it's specifically "speeders" that are at the bottom of this. I'd say that the main things that intimidate cautious motorway users are the nose to tail HGVs they have to negotiate in order to join or leave the carriageway, and then people either cutting them up or tailgating them, both of which tend to happen irrespective of speed. In comparitive terms I don't think the attentive driver wafting past in L3 at 100mph really registers on the radar!


I don't think cameras are appropriate for motorways at all, I think there is so little benefit compared to the risk of causing an accident due to panic braking (rightly or wrongly).

I think a reasonable number of visible traffic patrols will keep things sensible, supplemented by unmarked cars specifically tasked to look out for intimidatory driving.

Not a fan of the "fixed penalty" option, as I think it borders on blackmail: "pay this ticket or else we'll take you to court and you'll get hammered!". Nor do I think it's a good idea having an enforcement system that can inherently make a profit in this way, as the temptation to misuse it is simply too strong. No, what I think we really need is a simplified "fast track" court system that needs a minimum of paperwork and fuss to deal with relatively simple offences, but to accept that the cost of administering it is money well spent if it improves road safety.

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

I want to describe a hypothetical scenario here, which isn't a million miles from what actually happens.

There's a convoy of 20 cars in lane 2 of the motorway, all doing 65mph and maintaining about a 1.5 second headway, or about 40 metres apart. Car A is passing them in lane 3, and car B comes up behind him. Car A is doing 70mph and refuses to budge above the limit. As he ( rightly) judges that the gap between the cars in lane 2 is a bit too small to pull into, he decides he's going to stay in lane 3 until he's passed them all - but he's not going to speed (god forbid!)
But, to pass them all, at a 5mph differential, takes six minutes. And six minutes at 70mph is seven miles. So he's effectively blocking the motorway for seven miles. Now car B is behind him, and he can't drop back because there's traffic behind him. But his exit is now less than five miles ahead. A while later he sees the signs that the exit is one mile away, and he's still stuck there. It's now or never. Now he has to squeeze into the gap next to him that's really too small for one car, let alone two. And now that he's made it into lane 2, he's hoping that he can find, and synchronise with, a reasonable gap in the wall of lorries in lane 1 before his exit comes up.

Had car A sped up to 85mph for the circumstances, there would have been no problem - he would have cleared the bunch in less than two miles, and he would have done so in greater safety - because, although he had passed exactly the same number of cars as he would otherwise have, he would have spent a lot less time alongside each of them.
And car B would have been a lot safer as well.

Similar situations have happened to me. On more than a couple of occasions I've missed my exit completely because of it, and once I had to drive 40 miles out of my way.

Regards
Peter

I think they are concerned by a number of different factors, HGVs are a problem, because the cautious driver needs to move out to pass. They can often be hemmed in by the fear of pulling out in front of a fast closing vehicle in lane 2, who may or may not move courteously into lane 3. I've recognised this as one of the reasons why a significant number of lane 2 hoggers remain in lane 2, because of this type of perceived intimidation.





Hard to have it both ways John. Earlier, whilst on duty we were passed by a JagXK8 who was in his own mind (and in my mirror ) making 'safe' progress at about 110-120mph. The road was clear but he was approaching the S/B 50mph roadworks restriction at Burton in Kendal. His brakes would have been red hot when he passed us at 80-90 miles per hour. He continued at around 75-80 then had to brake hard again when he saw the 50mph limit looming up on him.

Maybe we'd be better not being there at all!


Are you against them for all offences John, or simply the due care offences?
I think it would go some way to redressing the balance if there was more likelihood of prosecution for bad driving behaviour. Using the above example again (the XK8 driver), experience tells me that if I had reported him for Sec3RTA (rather than the warning he got), it would be very unlikely to be run at court. Perhaps a letter of warning. CPS would probably be looking for more tangible evidence. It's not right in my book, but it's where the prosecution criteria seem to have shifted to in recent years. I think that the ability to issue fixed penalties would have the effect of clawing back that prosecution threshold to a more realistic level.

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

Ian

You need the 'driver defect rectification notice' - a sort of 'go for training' notice as a DWDCA disposal. If they want to argue they can go to court. If they don't they have to pay for a day or two's training focused on the error they made.

It's in our manifesto:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/manifesto.html

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

You describe a scenario which is not helped IMO by the fear of prosecution at lower thresholds on the motorway. ACPO guidelines used to suggest 85mph on the motorway as a threshold above which speed on its own should be considered for prosecution. Most Bib I know added a few more on.
I think our motorways are easily capable of having an 80mph limit, although I can see the argument that Paul makes suggesting we should remain with 70mph limit and relax the enforcement.
I'd like to see an 80 mph limit trialled in certain locations and see how it works.

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

Ian

I do like the sound of that... and it's the sort of scheme that'll provide jobs for me on retirement.
I remember discussing it with you Paul, in relation to RTCs, and I agreed it sounded like a good idea for all RTCs up to and including minor injury, although I think that insurance companies might not be happy about the implied recognition of guilt by the driver in accepting the ticket.

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

Ian

Good point... Do you think we could frame the legislation and the notices in such a way that no admission of fault was implied? I can't see any reason why not. If it helps us get the right result and helps drivers not to repeat mistakes, that can only be a good thing. You could do some cool and effective policing without guilt too. ("Trust me - I'm doing you a favour - I promise..." )

_________________
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 just aware that the fixed penalty scheme is a large part of the reason why we're where we are now. If "self financing" tickets had never been introduced then I think it's a safe bet that we wouldn't be saddled with "Safety" Camera Partnerships now.

So whatever the honorable intent behind the notion of fixed penalties, in practice I think they are bad for road safety overall. I think Paul's idea is a much better one, though there would need to be some sort of safeguards in place to ensure that the quality of the courses is high, and that it doesn't lead to profiteering - either in the official body overseeing it (Police / DfT) nor in the companies running the training. This is important so we don't fall back into the trap we're in now.

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

I agree, if you are going to overtake then do it safely and be decisive about it.

Or as Car A only going 5 mph faster than traffic in lane 2, and there so many cars to overtake, it would have been more responsible of him to stay in lane 2 and not try to overtake.

Precisely. I don't know why people treat overtaking on the motorway any differently to overtaking on a normal road.

Regards
Peter

I just don't know why we're stuck with motorway speed limits in the first place. Originally there weren't any, and then, IIRC, the 70 limit was brought in in response to some crashes in thick fog - no evidence of high speed though, although 50 was probably too fast for conditions.
Could it be that they considered 70 to be the max safe speed in the fog????
And it's stuck ever since.
And now we're discussing whether the limit should be 80 or 90, enforced or not enforced - shows what a sad lot we are, at least, that's what they've made us.

Perhaps the way forward is to do what they do in Germany - no speed limit, but an advisory speed of, say, 80. The trafpol can pull you above this if they consider you to be driving dangerously, and if you have a crash the insurance are reluctant to pay out.
Plenty of incentive there to drive sensibly - even more so if you value your skin.

Regards
Peter

I think it's because most people travelling along a motorway think of it as "cruising" rather than driving, which in turn must partly be a spin-off from the fact that we impose a relatively low speed limit.

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

Basingmate - we've had this conversation before - when I first joined in.

I can always tell a sweet talker when I see one. As Ian says - we've usually decided our plan of action with int the first tenth of a second of stopping you. It's based on what we see and then what you actually say and do to wheedle the way out. I can spot baloney from body language a mile off as well. I do not need a Prolaser III doo-dah to do this either! But based on current reports - my insitinct is far more accurate anyway!




You little flirt! Gatsomate - he scored after all! She was probably just out of training school to fall for that anyway! And hard up if she thought were worthy of a second thought!

Takes a lot more than a wheely to impress my missus! She got her roses on Monday! And a bit more besides!





Said with a dead pan face! You are a comedian!





I am with you on the first two and the last one. I use my professional judgement on the third and we are able to do so with reasonably professional competence . Most members of our team have a background in Maths and Sciences. and are highly trained.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Paul - we do have something in place for "undue cares"

"National Driver Improvement Scheme" - like the "Speed Awareness" (pratnership based) - we offer as alternative to prosecution. The course is only offered once and depends on the nature of the offence as well.

Unlike "Speed Awareness" as offered by some Pratnerships which is taught by specifically trained ADIs - this one is handled by police dirvers, assisted by specifically trained ADIs.

Many elements are similar - such as COAST - but we tend to concentrate more on hazard perception and error recognition.


Believe the Met and Lancs are prolific in offering this. We offer it to a few which we feel would benefit as well.

I think it it is currently underused as an option.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Although you gave the driver the benefit of the doubt, this fails to make sense as had this been a temporary or fixed camera on a motorway bridge even doing 75-80mph would have resulted in a fine issued and points removed from a licence? I also like the idea that you take into account whether a vehicle can handle a certain speed, for example a 3 litre £30,000 will be much better built than a 1.4 litre small people carrier. Please correct me Ian if I am wrong in anything I've said, any other comments would be appreciated.

Can I ask the PO's herein do they take account of the vehicle when deciding if it's driving at an appropriate speed?

I ask for a reason I'll detail here when I've seen some replies (and it's an interesting story).

P

I'm not a fan of the lower enforcement thresholds, although I'm not aware of people being ticketed under 79mph on the motorway. I hope the cameras change their prosecution thresholds to fit in with normal policing policy.

and

I also like the idea that you take into account whether a vehicle can handle a certain speed, for example a 3 litre £30,000 will be much better built than a 1.4 litre small people carrier

Did I say that TG6? I can't recall mentioning that on this post. However I do consider the car when building up a picture of the offence.
Several things have to be considered.

• The build quality of the car and it's ability to stand up to impact
• The ability of the car to protect it's driver and passengers
• The additional 'primary' and 'secondary' safety factors built into a bigger, more expensive car.
• The better avoidance controls incorporated.
• The destructive capability of that car (ie it's momentum).

In truth I don't really give much thought to the various different modern cars from small family cars upwards, as they all have most modern safety enhancements as standard, and the 'first and second party' safety enhancements offered by the bigger more expensive cars often means that their extra weight and build quality could be an added third party hazard.
E.g. I feel quite safe inside a 2 ton Volvo T5. It's brimming with airbags and protective features. If my high speed loss of control caused me to impact with a 1975 Austin Metro doing 55 on the motorway it would be pulp.
I think both sides of the argument have to be looked at. I'd rather stop and deal with a 2005 4.6t Sprinter doing 95 than a 1995 Ford Escort.

However if a 1975 Metro and a 2005 BMW 5 series were both doing 90mph on the motorway, my road safety interests would definitely make me lean towards stopping the Metro.

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

Ian

I answered this in a new topic: Speed and Stability

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

100% SPOT ON

If I drive through kendal I'll remember that.

_________________
RoADA Member -GOLD 2008
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.