Safe Speed Forums

Please forgive me if this has been suggested - I just can't generate the time to look through all the boards!

In my Utopia each individual would have a hightened sense of personal rights and responsibilities and there would be no speed limits and no cameras. That's not going to happen and I suspect that rather than beating enforcement technology we're going to see more of it. The GPS based big brother technology thing will happen and not just for road pricing.

Accepting that fact, what we need is a more enlightened idea of how to use the technology.

What I'm thinking of is a carrot based scheme of driver training and improvement rather than the stick based and stupid policing by numbers regime.

Lawyers, accountants, surgeons, engineers and other professionals all carry on training as they progress through their careers. Drivers should do the same, starting with the basic driving test and extending through advanced driving, skid pan training, accident simulators and police standard driving tests.

Yes, the insurance industry may co-operate with pricing incentives - if they see corresponding reductions in claims, but the real carrot for drivers could be higher speed limits according to how many 'training points' have been accumulated.

Imagine this: for a driver with just a basic driving test on their license, the motorway speed limit would be a strictly policed 70 mph - less in the wet. For a driver with the very highest level of training and competence, 90 might be the maximum and the proscecuting authorities could take a view on higher speeds according to prevailing weather and traffic conditions. Similar regimes could be set up on other types of roads.

Clearly new technology would be required to allow the identification of the DRIVER'S qualifications rather than the car's details, but with the government serious about chips in number plates and GPS technology, this could be a fair trade off AND actually see accident levels fall as drivers' abilities increase.

Ultimately, the system would recognise that the most trained and experienced drivers would be the best qualified to set their own limits. Now that would be progress!

_________________
Carrot not stick, train don't fine.

cue lots of folk saying: "I've been driving since before you were born (over 1 million miles also seems to be a popular albeit dubious claim) and never had an accident and you're trying to tell me that you're better than me because of some stupid course you've done?"

Going on from the scheme, I do like the idea but there also has to be some responsiblity to go with it. As such, I'd also suggest an automatic revocation of 'super license' for at least a year, if not more, for any "at fault" accident. I think this would help balance out the argument that you can't get experience just from a course.

I think it's critically important that higher levels of driver training are defined and encouraged by government. It's not just for the drivers that get the training - it also sends a message to the rest that they still have stuff left to learn.

A graduated driving licence is a Safe Speed manifesto proposal. 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

Whilst I agree that a graduated driving licence coulod be a good idea, I'm not sure about setting different numerical limits for different styles of licences.

For a start, it seems to be putting extra emphasis on speed as a number. This is not something that I think any of us consider useful for safety. There's also the problem that there would need to be some way of distinguishing, on the road, those drivers allowed to go faster than others. A plate on the back of your car, or a different coloured driving licence? What happens when your son/daughter borrows the car, or your wife who hasn't passed the advanced test yet? What would the penalty be for people wearing the plate without permission, and how would police detect this was happening?

I think the incentives for a higher level driving licence should probably be financial - compulsory lower insurance premiums, and not by a pitiful amount. The Pass Plus scheme has been fairly successful because it pretty much cuts a new driver's insurance in half- and when you're talking £1500/year sort of prices, that's a significant factor. A higher standard driving licence could also lead to situations where you'd be given the benefit of the doubt. For example if a trafpol were to stop you for travelling over the limit, but you had a piece of paper to say you're a highly skilled driver, he would perhaps concede that you used your judgement to set a safe speed.

So, in short, I'd have to say that I think varying speed limits by driver quality is an unworkable scenario.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

currently yes, but the OP did have this to say:



you are right, of course, that it shouldn't just be about a number but that then brings us to the next question. With no limit, how do we deal with people driving way too fast for the conditions - and who decides what is way too fast?

Sure, rationalising safe driving to numbers is a compromise, but as johnsher said, NO limits are probably some way away.

The point is about getting drivers - and I mean a significant proportion of drivers, to embrace ongoing training.

Compelling the insurance industry to reduce premiums by statute ain't going to happen and with the best will in the world, discounts based on actuarial figures won't be enough. The opportunity to enjoy preferential speed limits would.

_________________
Carrot not stick, train don't fine.

I'm with Mike[F] here. Aside from the potential problems with getting working technology to distinguish between licences, without which the system will be nigh on impossible to police, it still means that the driving population is wedded to driving by numbers. I'm also a bit worried that it could cause confusion for foreign visitors when confronted with two speed limits. It's easy to say that sensible visitors would check beforehand, but inevitably many will not. But that's probably a much smaller issue.



The solution is not to get rid of speed limits at all, but to retain them, frequently review them to ensure they're correctly set, and finally get the BiBs to enforce them rationally rather than blindly.

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

Correctly set speed limits? Excuse me, but for whom?

A motorway limit that's correctly set for an inexperienced 17 year old (who needs the limit) will be far from correct for a driver of 40 years' experience in a performance vehicle (who does not need the limit).

I keep coming back to this point - the people who need speed limits most are the people who lack the experience to accurately adjust their speed according to the conditions. So that's 17 year old Kevin in his Nova.

I agree that most of us shouldn't be driving by numbers, but Kevin needs the numbers. The question becomes how are we best going to balance the needs of different road user groups, and I think national limits by driver class is quite likely to be useful.

We already have drivers' licence classes. Some, for example, may not drive manual cars. How's that policed? It's OK isn't it?

Then there's the whole incentive thing. We MUST find the right carrots.

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

It's a lot harder to go out and buy a car with the wrong sort of transmission than it is to go 10mph faster than 70, though.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

I would say that it isn't policed at all, unless you have an accident, when they come down on you like a ton of bricks, however if you are generally driving outside of the law (no licence, no insurance, etc) then you probably do a runner, and even when they catch you it takes a jail sentence to make a difference (until release date anyway).

We have to move towards that don't we? I don't understand why some(perhaps even a majority?) of drivers take no interest in the standard, quality and safety of their driving. Too many people seem to relish telling people they are 'crap' drivers.

A driving licence should be something you have pride in, and any properly stuctured graduated driving licence has to be a good thing. I personaly would strive to reach the 'gold' stardard for two reasons. 1) I'd like to do everything I could to make sure I was a safe as possible on the road and 2) For reasons of pride.

[quote="johnsher"]cue lots of folk saying: "I've been driving since before you were born (over 1 million miles also seems to be a popular albeit dubious claim) and never had an accident and you're trying to tell me that you're better than me because of some stupid course you've done?"

quote]

I've seen the evidence of most in here and I could say that - some have said that i got my licence before they were born - i've passed two tests , a standard one , then another government one some years later.I've had to pass a test from elderly relatives, some ex tank drivers with 50 years experience. I ALSO decided at 21 to take my car on a course - hadn't driven in a city since my test - got extra tuitition and found that my basics came back.
Stop being a bighead - i waS taught to look for and follow the advice of BIB - far better than boasting about some course - my course - staying alive for ten years on a single track road, with advice from our local BIB,just after i passed my test(first one)
Been driving as you say longer than most( 39 yrs) - take my advice - never po po any advice(even from someone just passed test) - sit down
analyse it and think - when you drive - analyse every move - could you take a corner safer/smoother , get a better line on a safer aproach to the next corner/blind spot --be slowing down before the car in front starts to brake - spot the kid under the car down the road, before it decides to cross the road -
So before you start preaching - start looking at experience /driving standards
I stop learning to drive a car the day i start learning to fly with a halo- most of my age are

Sorry, I didn’t put that as well as I could have. Perhaps “scientifically set” would have been better than “correctly set”. I was thinking of limits set along the lines of the 85th percentile rather than politically set ones set with more thought about the safety of council seats than that of road users.


Obviously any limit, regardless of what it says on the sign, is never going to be correct for all drivers any more than it is for all conditions. However, for a number of different reasons I’m still not sold on the idea of different national limits for different licences. Frankly I can’t see how it’s better to have two or more limits strongly enforced than to have a single limit enforced at the discretion of superbly trained BiBs. And if it’s not going to be strongly enforced but discretionary, how is that any different in practice from discretionary enforcement of a single national limit?


We all seem to agree that it’s still driving by the numbers, and I’m really not sure that merely having two sets of numbers will move us forward a great deal. Like I said, I’m not sold…. yet I could be, although I have serious doubts as to whether it will have undesirable side effects, adequate take up and for that matter, whether it will even be practical to achieve in the first place.

• Policing and enforcement. There has to be a way for the police to easily distinguish between drivers whose licences permit faster speeds and those whose licences don’t. We’ve really got two options AFAICS. First something really low tech, like a plate or something to display on the car, but which may have the big disadvantage of being transferable, nick-able, lose-able or all three. Second is a high-tech option, of which I’m as sceptical as I am of GPS speed control and per mile charging, and for broadly similar reasons. I don’t think the auto-only licence is a fair comparison since, as Rewolf says, it doesn’t seem to be actively policed at all. Ever hear of someone being caught with the wrong gearbox and prosecuted? I expect that if it ever happens at all it’ll be because the driver gets tugged for something else and the copper notices the licence and a manual gear lever. Also, these licences are pretty thin on the ground aren’t they? I’m prepared to be shot down on this, but having never in my life met anyone with an auto-only licence I think they’re probably too rare to make a fair comparison with a possible future graded licence scheme. I’d expect there to be millions more on the lowest rung above learner than currently auto-only licences, which would increase the difficulty in policing it effectively.
• Confusion. As I mentioned before, I’m not sure how it might look to a foreign visitor seeing it for the first time. “Two speed limits? Which do I use? Is the lower for trucks and other large vehicles so I use the higher one? Or is it for bad weather so I use both depending on conditions? Or are some drivers allowed to go faster, in which case what limit applies to my (insert nationality) licence? Basically, WTF do I do here? Sure, it’s easy to say that visitors should check these things out in advance, but people being people I expect many, perhaps a majority, won’t.
• Incentive to train. You’re pitching this concept at a group who are largely keen on driving, interested in road safety and are already inclined to look at means of improving their skills, and being legally allowed to drive faster may well be sufficient incentive. But I doubt it applies to the average driver. Much as I wish it were otherwise I honestly believe the best incentive for the majority would be financial. Advanced training is obviously an investment, but many people won’t see it as such unless they actually see some cash in it. Why would Joe Average spend £100 (or whatever) to be allowed to drive at the new faster limit when he’s spent years breaking the speed limit to go that fast anyway? On the other hand if his 100 quid looks good for a decent insurance reduction, or for that matter a reduction on any motoring expense, then he might think differently.

Absolutely agree that how we should balance all the different needs is an important question, but are we looking in the right direction for the answer here? I can see a role for different classes of driving licences, but so far nothing has been said that makes me think that defining what speed the holder may drive at is it. You’re absolutely right that we need the best carrots, but legal high speed driving is not the only carrot, and I feel that juicier carrots are probably out there.

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

Well said Gatsobait

One idea that I can think of is a fuel duty discount where showing your (photo) licence when you pay for petrol gives you a discount against fuel duty. Not easy to get around for most people as the face should match the ID and the name match the card being used for payment.

It is a potential carrot that wouldn't be that hard to implement (would also encourage getting new licences). The potential downside is that the high mileage drivers that would benefit the most financially are already amongst the most experienced and safest on our roads, while the tank-every-couple-of-months people have minimal incentive...

If the carrot is jucier for those with greater risk exposure, I'd say that was a good thing.

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

I don't have time right now to give a fully detailed reply. But think about providing a motivation that suits the daily needs of business users. I've done my fair share of commercial dashing about on the motorways, and an extra 20mph would have been very nice thanks. And think of competative groups (a sales team?) If one's got it, they all want it.

Neither would I post mutiple speed limits. We just give suitable grade drivers the right to exceed NSL by 20mph (or whatever).

And it's not about giving them the right to drive faster. It's rreally about a) incentives and b) legitimising current practice.

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

I am, and I've done my share of high mileage. Not as much as some but for several years I was doing 20K work miles. Frankly I was getting screwed on the company car tax and an 20 quid a month would have meant a damn sight more to me than an extra 20mph on the motorway, especially as I'd be doing the extra if the conditions allowed anyway (or doing about 5mph if I was on the M6 ). That said, I wasn't in sales so I can't speak for it being a competitive team in that respect. What we did wasn't something you could target or improve by getting to a site faster so our 'competitions' were of an entirely different nature.


Fair enough. That solves the confusion issue at a stroke, and makes me feel a bit more positive about the idea. But it still leaves the other obstacles, including the problem of how a BiB tells the difference between someone who has the right to exceed the limit and someone who has not. Removable plates that display the higher grade licence are likely to be too easily transferable, and prone to loss, theft and abuse. Make them impossible to remove and they can no longer account for a change of driver. That leaves a technological solution, and frankly I'm no more comfortable with that than I am with track and trace per mile charging. AFAICT the only other alternative is for the BiBs to find out if a driver is allowed to go faster by tugging them and looking at the licence. The worry then is one of stoppig to many drivers who were 'legitimately speeding' (for want of a better expression). If you get tugged and let on your way you lose that speed advantage the higher grade licence got you and reduces the incentive effect. OTOH if the police go back to pulling only those drivers their training identifies as driving badly then the higher grade licence holders don't need to worry, but the same will apply to the bog standard licence holders too, won't it? So what would be the difference between discretionary enforcement where some drivers are permitted to exceed the limit and discretionary enforcement with the existing limit and licence structure?


That's kind of where my problem with this lies. I'm not against (b) by any means, though I don't see that graded licences are essential to achieve it. And I'm not against (a) either, but I don't think this provides a strong enough incentive. Perhaps I'm projecting here and more people than I think would think of 'legitimate speeding' (I really need a better term ) as an incentive. I'll ask around to see if money or speed seems to get a more favourable reception, but TBH I'll be very surprised if it turns out to be speed.

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

It doesn't have to be either/or does it? We have to offer a whole raft of incentives. Different incentives will have different values to different people.

Once we have official standards of higher level driver training the insurance companies will be able to measure the benefits and pass on premium savings. (So long as we get the standards right.)

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

No, but so far we've only discussed speed and money as incentives in this thread. I agree that to get a good take up for any future advanced training / qualification the net needs to be cast as widely as possible, which means a number of different incentives designed to appeal to different groups. Just like you said. We still need to work out what they might be though. Power:weight ratios? Could be restricted on the lower grade licenses. I'm broadly in favour of something that will prevent a brand new driver jumping into a Porsche without some training to enable them to handle it better, and graded licences seem like a good way to go about it. Still, not problem free either. Could be the same policing and enforcement problems as with the speed idea. Also, if a limit of X bhp/ton is set we're again working by the numbers - just a different set of numbers.


Oh yes - but they'd certainly need to be convinced of the value from a claims risk point of view, so it's not just a case of getting the standards right but also the nature and content of the course that leads to the higher qualification.

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

Yeah, but if the standards are right then the claims history will justify lower premiums.

Yep. That's what I meant. I was thinking that the 'standards' would in turn control the course content.

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