Safe Speed Forums

Forgive me if this has come up before. I joined tonight and have not had time to read many posts. The question that interests me is why motorists who are detected exceeding the posted speed limit (I will not use the term "speeding", this should be reserved for vehicles travelling at very high speeds) are immediately punished when I read constantly about yobs being let off with cautions for fighting and general mayhem.

Isn't it time we got our priorities right? In my view exceeding the posted limit is purely a technical offence (why do some people assume it is a criminal offence?) Surely the reason for speed limits is to regulate traffic to (what the authorities consider) a speed at which it is safe to drive. In that case it should only be punishable if, as a consequence of the excess speed, an accident occurs (and the onus should be on the police to prove that it was due to excessive speed)

I have always maintained (throughout 45 years of driving) that the only person who is qualified to judge what is a safe speed (at any given time and place) is the driver himself. Only he knows what the conditions are, what the ability of the driver is, what the condition of the vehicle is, what the circumstances are etc. It is ludicrous to assume (as present authority does) that they know best what the safe speed is.

I also totally agree with the view that driving slowly saps concentration, I have always found that the faster I drive the more attentive I become (speed does not kill but inattention often does).

I could fulminate in this vein for hours but I'll leave that for future posts!

I'll leave you with this thought, what would it be if all those tree-huggers, environmentalists, greens, friends of the earth and Brake members were rounded up and shot into space - a start!

I think you're going to like it here.

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

^^^^^

What he said!!

welcome home, get your feet under the table, pull up a bowl of porridge and dig in! Only two bears to watch out for, Basingwerk and JJ, who like the idea of mass "education" in the Orwellian way, other than that free speech and expression is welcome!

Cheers

Paul

CPS Defence barristers Polital correctness

Lot of cases - some reported with glee byour tabloids - but all too often we take a scrote - no documents/licence to court and he gets a drip fine... and there have been three cases to my knolwdge whereby a habitual drunk with 29 previous offences in one case and 20 and 22 in the other two cases - has been "banned" but no tag or custodial sentence. But if they have some "hard luck story" or in receipt of benefits ...even happens on our patch - and it is soul destroying when you pick up the same person over and over.



I agree some roads are set a too high a speed limit and others far too low. Here in my patch - we have NO fixed Gatsos and we use police intelligence when enforcing. One camera van and the lads larking around! We believe in education first (and we are polite but input a bit of "acid" if appropriate ) Appears to work - we have a good record. We also have a lot of reminder signs on our more notorious roads and again - drivers appear to note and comply by and large.

We target those we "have reasonable cause to believe are a danger ot selves and others" and we have a "pleasing" detection rate for drunks and drugs.... We also go for stupidity speed wise with no quarter withheld. Over our tolerance level (not saying what! ) on our dual carriageways and our discretion is well tested!

Germany's famed derestricted does require an extra permium for using the perk - if you are not insured at above 8-mph and have an accident - German policies will not pay up unless person has insured him or herself to drive over this speed. Premiums for this ar quite high by all accounts.



I have no problem with COAST drivers! COAST determines how you judge the safest speed and usually you find yourself around the `10% on roads where speed does actually matter safety wise. If you want to know about COAST.... I've posted it all over this site But you always drop me or Ian or Ernest or Paul or any one of the regulars a private message to find out more!





Errr... um - ... confess ... Mad Doc. self and others in our family were part of the initial BRAKE team. We acknowledge and support their work with victims of any Road Accident and support their stance on tired drivers, prescription and other drug warnings and will applaud their work on bringing rogue garages to acount.

Where we disagree and conflict is on the single focus of speed as a root of all UK road accidents and a belief that a speed camera is the sole solution to a problem - and this family have first hand experience - myself professionally and privately - of the "other sort of accident". When you see the aftermath of any accident - you will do whatever you can to advise on accident prevention and COAST is working just fine in Durham

_________________
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.

Welcome Goldminer.

I agree very strongly with the proposition that the driver is in the best position to decide what speed is safe in any particular circumstances. On the open road I allow myself full freedom to make those decisions and I act accordingly, though this is not quite what the authorities had in mind.

Enjoy your driving as best you can in this nanny state scenario we have at present, and stay safe. Oh, and try not to get caught!!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Hi Goldminer,

A warm welcome too. I would echo most if not all of your observations.

I think most of my counterparts here present would know I don't necessarily agree with this. If we have to wait for accidents to occur (in any sphere or activity) before we punish people then I'm convinced that there would be far more of them.
I await some disagreement

Rigpig, I don't necessarily disagree with your comments... But if traffic is moving at say 36 to 38 generally (the 85th percentile) in a 30 zone, then surely such a speed has to be "reasonable" given the circumstances???

Now, the bloke who trundles through at 42 or 45 mph may be sailing close to the wind but not necessarily dangerously. If he has an accident, he should have to justify his speed...

Then we get onto the reckless: Same stretch of road and someone comes through at 49 to 53 mph when the 85% is still around 37. This should be a nicking regardless (or a serious talking to)... But of course, every circumstance is different.

I'll take my chance that I'm likely to have a KSI incident through speed on average every 120, 000 years or so. Let's put this in perspective

Just to address this one point, it is my understanding that it is a criminal offence, in that if you choose to contest it in court, and are found guilty by a magistrate, then you receive a criminal conviction.

The current position seems to be that it's only a criminal offence when they want it to be.

'Speeders' are 'serious criminals', and speeding is a 'serious criminal offence' is often the official line.

But when it comes to investigation, evidence, on the spot fines etc. suddenly it's 'something different' to which the ordinary rules of a fair trial do not apply.

And disagreement is what you're going to get

That rests rather heavily on the assumption that speed causes accidents.

As I pointed out in another thread, if the manner of your driving is such that your speed significantly affects your accident risk then you have already lost the plot, and that your speed is even then merely a symptom of your bad driving.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

My understanding is that you can always choose to go to court and have a trial if you want to, it's just that with a fixed penalty you have the option of choosing a lesser sanction and no criminal conviction. I agree that it is wrong to "blackmail" people in this way, but speeding is not unique in this regard. For example, if I am wrongly accused and convicted of murder, I will receive a greater punishment for being innocent and pleading not guilty than a guilty person who pleads guilty would receive. If I maintained that I was innocent throughout my time in prison, I would be in there for a lot longer than if I lied and said I was guilty.

Quite. My post was extremely short and all I was trying to convey was my belief that there ARE circumstances under which speeding should rightly be punished even if no incident occurs as a result.
I had prepared a much longer post which broadly made the same point you did but went a littel further, but I decided to snip it because I've made the point before and didn't wish to revist the arguments made in a previous thread.

So if we never punished anyone for exceeding the speed limit under any circumstances, there would be no effect on accident rates? Is that what you are saying Pete?

That's not what I said, but now that you mention it, I do believe that the effect would be small - as there is no known mechanism which suggests otherwise. (after all the crap has been sifted out)

However, as there's little or no empirical evidence for or against, it's just your opinion against mine.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

It has taken me a while, but I think I understand why I have difficulty agreeing with Pete's words, despite knowing that he really does understand what is going on. I've come to the conclusion that if A causes B, and B causes C, then Pete doesn't like it to be said that A causes C.

I'm tempted to think that we could do away with speed limits completely if we could find a way of punishing emergency brake applications. Perhaps we'd allow one per year or something. 2 in a year would mean training. 3 in a year would mean endorsement. 10 in a year would be a ban.

But of course there's a worry that some people might delay braking because of the penalty. That wouldn't be good in an emergency.

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

Not quite.

If A causes B and A causes C it does not necessarily follow that B causes C.

Or, sticking to your model of A causes B causes C, then C is really caused by A, because if A didn't cause B then B cannot cause C.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I think the big issue with the way speeding charges are prosecuted is down to the fact that the system is built around the requirement to self-incriminate.

What other crime can you be charged with where the police send you a pro-forma confession, tell you to fill it in and, at the same time, warn you that the penalty for failing to confess is at least as severe as the penalty for the offence they want the confession for?

What ever happened to the rules against self incrimination, the right to a fair trial etc?

edited for grammar!

(For the sake on completeness) It's also worth observing that C may also have other causes. Even if A causes B causes C, the relationship D causes C may turn out to be far more important. And you might even find that attempting to improve A makes D worse...

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