Safe Speed Forums

What if said road is safe at twice that speed, the speed limit was 60, and was reduced to 30 for spurious reasons?

I do realise you're talking from a legal point of view, but what if it was shown that compliance with a speed limit actually increases your risk of having an accident? (hypothetical question) Isn't there a moral point of law here?

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

What's the source of those figures?

The Netherlands is not directly comparable because most speeding offences are not penalty point offences.

If enforcement levels were greater still we could convict close to 100% of drivers annually. Because virtually all of us exceed the speed limit from time to time. But would that be a good thing?




We earned ourselves (more or less) the safest roads in the world when we overtook sweden in 1979. Through the 1980s we extended our world lead substantially. In the speed camera era we have not maintained our rate of improvement. Germany and Holland are about to overtake us.



You didn't read what I wrote properly - I'd chosen the words carefully.



Absolutely. But that's not the point.



You missed that point. In good conditions I might choose to drive at 70mph on the motorway. In reality that means I'm constantly drifting in and out of legality because speed cannot be maintained precisely.



You are kidding! I doubt that there's a single driver in the country who has not exceeded the speed limit by a prosecutable marging in the last month of driving. And if you find one, I bet he's a menace.



No. It means we should recognise a problem and manage it in the interests of safety.



That's a very responsible attitude and I approve. But I don't agree. The speed limit laws are doing MASSIVE damage to road safety directly and indirectly.



Law are good laws when they achieve their objective and have the consent, support and voluntary compliance of a sizeable majority.

The present application of the speed limit law fails to tick most of those boxes.

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

I ask if you could please give the sources of your information.

I would seem interesting that we are being overtaken, in terms of road safety, by Germany, which does not have speed limits on many motorways, and Holland, which does not have penalty points for most speeding offences.

Is there something our government could learn from this !!!!

As a general comment I would say to “fisherman” that the use of speed cameras is supposed to be about improving road safety, which they are particularly ineffective at achieving, not about imposing the law for the law’s sake, which is all he seems to consider important.

The information regarding speding penalties in Holland comes from Frank Joppe of http://www.flitsservice.nl - a friend of mine and forum user 'drnomad'.

The information about road safety values is the fatal accident rate per billion vehicle km from IRTAD: http://www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen/irtad/ Some 'back of an envelope' extrapolations are involved. Recent German progress has been remarkable. See:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/25 and
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/germany.html

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

I've said this several times, usually when "debating" with Basingwerk - as I see it, the present approach to speed-trapping and enforcing the law "because it's there" is as logical and sensible as invoking the entire majesty of the Theft Act upon someone who's taken a biro and a few paperclips home from the office!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Yes it is easy to guess isn't it, and I don't suppose that the fact you guessed wrong will stop you guessing in the future.

The reason I didn't respond is because it is exactly that kind of paranoid OTT post that devalues much of the hard work put in by large numbers of anti camera campaigners.

Posts like that are often quoted by pro camera people as examples of just how desperate protesters are to find a case.

Not all speed limits are put in for safety reasons. I have read on another board of a 30 limit put in to reduce noise at a hospice. I gather that the limit is regularly ignored because "its an obvious 60". It may be an obvious 60 but its 30 for a reason, to allow dying people a measure of peace in their last days.

I suspect that is what a lot of people have been trying to prove for a long time. But it will have to be proved to parliament as your local friendly magistrates court has no power to change the law.

Its perhaps a good opportunity for me to repeat that I am neither for or against cameras. I post occasionally to put another point of view because sites like this one can get very bogged down with one angle.

You might like to know that I frequently post on a magistrates site, putting a rather different view than the one I post here, and I do so for exactly the same reason.

A good point. Perhaps you could take it up with employers who turn a blind eye to theft or the CPS who prosecute speeding cases.

You need to bear in mind that I have to deal with what comes to court.
If parliament makes a law and
the police or camera partnership detect an alleged breach and
the CPS prosecute it

I am not in a position to say I disagree and won't hear the case.

I post about what I know (or think I know ) and its a pity that no one from the CPS posts with their view.

So it is another case of "I was just doing my job and following orders", however unreasonable, unfair and unjust that may be, with no consideration of the damage to what is supposed to be the real objective of all this, to improve road safety.

Does he not consider the huge and quite unfair advantages that the police have over the driver who believes they are innocent, yet have to try to defend them self with very limited knowledge and experience about the legal and court system and with a tiny fraction of the resources available to the prosecution.

Where is the justice in that !!!

Not very elegant to re-quote my own post, but I wanted to make it as easy as possible for fisherman to respond to the points raised.

Fisherman, when responding please remember that you are encouraged (by me at least) to respond personally, not as an official, JP, magistrate/whatever. I am genuinely interested in gaining some insight into your personal views on the speed limit enforcement regime.

But you could throw it out of court if the partnership has gone out of its way to make it impossible for the defendant to argue their case by not providing the photographs and video evidence in a timely fashion. If that happened a few times it might help to return some balance to the scales of justice.

The system is that the CPS and police must prove beyond reasonable doubt to secure a guilty verdict, so the defence only need introduce reasonable doubt to secure a not guilty verdict.

I am in the system doing my best, along with others, to make it as fair as possible. What are you doing to ensure fairness in the system?

The system is far from perfect but until and unless someone invents something better and convinces parliament of that fact we are stuck with it.

It is also worth pointing out that a lot of people get all their information from the media or the internet.
I have seen cases reported in the media that have huge errors of fact which go uncorrected.

Even the best internet sites have errors in them.

For instance if I had not corrected a post in this thread
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6114
anyone who viewed this site would have beleived that you can go to jail for speeding

We do exactly that when it is appropriate.

A lot of people go to court armed with knowledge of a technicality that will get them off. When the technicality turns out not to exist they refuse to believe the court and claim they have been stitched up.

As an example, we get a lot of people who say that they can't be convicted because the police officer who stopped them would not allow them to read a copy of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in the police car at the time they were stopped.

There has NEVER been a right to do that. PACE itself makes that very clear. The last one we had was told by the clerk, the bench chairman, the CPS prosecutor and THREE defence lawyers who had been in court at the time. He is appealing to the crown court because he is convinced he is right.

Perhaps that's a half-decent reason, but there must be far better ways of allowing dying people a bit of peace and quiet than to prosecute drivers - and perhaps, in doing so, deprive them of their livelihoods - for making a few dB extra noise (but for a shorter time, because they're past more quickly). Especially as, 1) drivers are probably given no indication as to why the speed limit is apparently ridiculously low, and b) a HGV at 30 will make much more noise at 30 than a car at a much higher speed, so why penalise the car driver for making a noise?

But I was thinking more of roads nowhere near hospices, or any other developments for that matter, which have had their limits reduced simply because some busybody councillor thought it was a good idea.



And there's the hell of it.
While on the subject, did you hear that they're currently trying to enact a bill to make it possible for a minister to change a law without going through parliament?

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

Well that is a fine piece of theory, but you tell that to the likes of David Jennings, alleged to have been doing 60 in a 30 limit, Daily Mail, 28 January 2006.

He had to fight for two years, with 15 court hearings at a cost of £30,000, with the help of various legal and technical experts, before the court would accept there was a reasonable doubt. He was fortunate enough to get legal-aid, otherwise what chance would he have had.

Even then they would not accept that the LTI 20.20 was just plain wrong and the CPS got themselves of the hook by accepting that the old fashioned 30mph sign, with the flat top 3, was wrong so they didn’t have to hand over the video tape which would have proved that the LTI 20.20 is an unreliable and inaccurate instrument.

I have been battling for months to get my video and even after getting a ruling from the ICO in my favour under the Data Protection Act and having twice asked for a ruling from the court on this, which they would not provide, the police will still not provide me with a proper and complete copy of the video and other evidence.

Further to that, my application for legal-aid has been turned down, so as an unemployed semi-retired engineer with very limited income and living off moderate savings how am I supposed to afford the necessary expert opinions required, assuming I even get the required video tape.


What I am doing is just trying to fight my corner against almost insurmountable odds, just to try to establish that I am not guilty of the alleged speeding offence that I have been accused of. I have already had to spend hundreds of hours and £100s to get what help, understanding and evidence I can about the speed camera system and the legal and court procedures. At very least I have the benefit of being technically well qualified, capable of learning and reasonable articulate, but many accused are not so fortunate.

The very least you can do is to ensure that when a defendant asks for a copy of his video, or photo evidence, that you make dam sure that the CPS and Police provide it without any further delay and procrastination.

It is, anyway, quite unreasonable that an accused motorist should not be able to get a copy of his video, to check the validity of the allegation, before deciding whether to go to court. It would be considered absolute and ridiculous nonsense if the CPS had to decide whether to prosecute without seeing the evidence, yet that is exactly what the accused driver has to do, so how reasonable and fair is that .


The system certainly is very far from perfect, with everything immensely weighted in favour of the police, who repeatedly abuse their position of power in this matter.

What are you doing to make sure that the normal driver, who can’t afford legal representation, gets a fair hearing. What happens when you are asked to adjudicate on a legal aid request. What provision is made to help drivers through the complications of the legal and court system.

Please tell me where else can the normal safe driver accused of speeding get any information from, apart from the media and internet, if he can’t afford to engage a solicitor. I was quoted £250 per hour for a solicitor, so how long would my saving last, which I need to live for the next three years.

I agree that from my own experience, with media reports about my case, just how distorted and wrong the reports can be, but that was beyond my control and is the source of information available to the normal person. Do you know of any better alternative that does not require many years of study, or huge amounts of money.

With respect to postings on SafeSpeed, these are normal people trying to express an opinion, just like you and me, and contribute to the issue in the best way they can. Undoubtedly some of them will not have all the necessary expertise, but they are entitled to their opinion and to have their say and provide what help and advice they can. Perhaps you could make a more positive contribution by providing some help and advice on the legal and court system for motorists who are trying to defend themselves again a speeding allegation.

With respect to going to jail, it would seem that happened to a woman who did not attend the trial because all the court communications had been sent to her old address, so she was taken from her car and put in jail. Also if I was fined, with expenses, and did not, or could not, pay then I bet I would soon get locked up. If I got a bill for £5,500 costs for an expert witness from the prosecution then I doubt that I could pay that.

Perhaps because you are familiar with the legal and court system you just don’t realise how daunting it can be to a normal driver who gets a speeding ticket, where he believes he is innocent and tries to fight his case through the courts. Next time you are hearing a case perhaps you could bear that in mind.

Speed limit violations attract licence endorsements because there is a perceived safety violation.

What's the moral legitimacy of issuing licence endorsements for a minor noise violation?

And anyway, is speed any reasonable way to specify noise levels? 35mph in a Rolls Royce against 30mph on a noisy (but legal) motorbike? Or 30mph in 1st gear against 35mph in 4th?

No. This is the law making a complete ass of itself.

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

I think a sign saying "HOSPICE" with the subtitle go through on a training throttle of possible please" message 150 yards either side of the hospice in a 60 mph area that is good for 60 would be far preferred to a Gatsoed 30 mph limit for all concerned.

I have no sympathy with anybody who knows that they have committed an offence and then tries to get off on a technicality, but you have it in your power to do something to help the people who know they are innocent. I am 100% certain that if the CPS knew that their evidence was good they would provide it to the accused as quickly as possible. You should take a deliberate delay as an admission of reasonable doubt and find the accused not guilty. There is no reason for the CPS to withold clear evidence of an offence.

In the example quoted the driver will not know why the limit was imposed. He just took the view that his judgement of the "correct" speed was better than the judgement of those who put the signs up, even though he must have known that he could not possibly have all the information necessary to make that decision. Any penalty imposed is for exceeding the posted limit not for excess noise.


I find councillors with good ideas rather few and far between. If a council has imposed a 30 limit on a road that may well be safe at 60 it will be because they have been put under pressure by voters who want it that way.
Perhaps there is a lesson there for those who want the speed laws to be changed.



I suspect that may well be something on which you and I can agree.