Safe Speed Forums

I came across this site and have found the contents useful and usually thoughtful. But it occurs to me that in many instances there is a disparity between those setting the laws and those enforcing the laws. This is my overview of what I believe to be the case and also what I've heard from many active officers regarding their personal (note personal not professional) view of the law and how it's enforced in the UK.

1. It is the local borough/council/county who are responsible for setting speed limits on roads, although they follow guidelines from central government they often have discretion regarding interpretation when setting local limits.

2. The police in many instances have to enforce a set of specific rules and collect evidence. The CPS then independently decide whether to proceed with a prosecution.

3. The CPS then provide the information to the courts on which the courts base their decisions, in many instances the courts objective is to move the process through in a timely and cost effective manner, with minimum disruption.

4. The Camera partnerships have a vested interest in promoting increased camera usage (I'll come onto this later) and the lack of transparency should be a major concern to many.

Now given that it's the Police who are at the front line of the enforcement in many cases it is they who have to deal at the sharp end, but they have little say in the processes and rules on which their actions have to be based. I view the police as generally hard working and good at their jobs, however it is clear that even they are frustrated at the way they have to enforce the rules. Recently a neighbour was the victim of a breakin to his car and the theft of headrest screens, this was captured on a CCTV system although the quality was not good enough to identify the individuals face but his distinctive clothes were clear, the police responded in a timely and professional way and indeed one of the culprits was caught nearby. This culprit was a known regular offender and a youth with a drug problem, the CPS would not use the CCTV evidence (even though it was in support of a witness) on the grounds that it didn't identify the individuals face. The detectives involved made the comment that it's a now become 'accepted' that the amount of evidence required for conviction is a variable determined by the workload of the courts at the time.

Now to the situation with cameras and speeding.

It seems clear to me (and most people I talk to) that speeding is being used as a stealth tax. The system itself is corrupted by one part of the system 'washing the hands' of the other.

A little about me as a driver might help readers put this in context. I have no points on my licence at the moment and haven't had a speeding conviction in 5 years (M1 motorway, 105mph, summer Sunday morning at 6:00am ish, empty road - 6 Points no ban at court, pleaded guilty and explained that me losing licence would have consequences on people I employed - all true), so this isn't a rant because I'm annoyed.

I drive a high powered Mercedes car and drive appropriately to the road conditions (you can interpret that as you see fit, on a clear, dry motorway I'll drive at one speed whereas on a busy or wet or foggy motorway I'll regularly drive well below the speed limit). I don't tailgate (even though some people REALLY need to learn there is an inside lane), overtake stupidly or cut into people, I use signals always (even changing lanes on an empty motorway!!) and consider myself an experienced driver (in my past I used to drive up to 60,000 miles a year as a rep). I don't indulge in road rage or racing. I believe it would be appropriate to set speed limits of 20mph outside schools, hospitals, parks and other places where 'vulnerable' people congregate.

There seems to be a wealth of data that speed causes death. However the interpretation of this data seems at best to be statistically flawed (I've read many of the TRL documents on this site), the reasons for these flaws seem to sit in three areas:-

1. The source of the data is not transparent, therefore the data cannot be challenged by peer review. This would not stand scrutiny of any scientific body and would certainly not be allowed to be published in any respected scientific journal without this ability.

2. Because the source of the data is not transparent we are unable to truly evaluate it's merit. In my conversations with serving police officers it is true that speed has a large effect on the consequences of an accident. However speed is usually not the 'determining factor' of the accident, in many more cases it's either drink, drugs or 'inappropriate' road behaviour. But let me be clear as I said above high speed can then often act as a magnifying factor of the consequences of the accident.

3. As the Camera Partnerships have a huge vested interest in the collection of fines their objectivity has to be questioned, however they seem to have no clearly defined responsibility to either central or local government, instead the lines of responsibility are fudged so that they in effect become answerable to no one.

The system has therefore become I believe flawed with no appropriate recourse in law.

The speed limits on roads are set by local government who have a financial interest (if even indirectly) in the success of the revenue raising by the camera partnerships. In the case of indirectly it's because costs that would normally be bourne by the local government are moved to the partnership and therefore 'off budget'.

Because the amount of revenue raised allows more to be moved 'off budget' it is likely that this is having a direct effect on the setting of speed limits 'artificially low' to encourage revenue generation. I understand that the speed limit is set for a road at a measurement of 85% of the average speed for the road (or some such similar formula?). However does the collection of this data define the speeds have to be collected over a defined period of time and weather conditions of the road?

The reason I ask is that the A13 from East London to the M25 has recently been widened and improved to a three lane road, however the speed limit has been set at 40mph on a road that I would consider able to support certainly a 50mph limit and perhaps 60mph. If the speed limit is 'set' by measuring traffic only on a wet Friday afternoon in the period 4pm - 7pm then 40mph is way to high.

It is this lack of transparency that is causing people to question what is happening, if Central Government were to introduce a new clearly defined set of rules (rather then guidelines) then at least that would start to rebuild confidence in the system. Of course Central Government also benefits from being able to move items 'off budget'.

As to my statement above about 'one hand washing the other' above it is worthwhile remembering that there is a small but very effective lobby who have a massive financial interest in the expansion of speed cameras. The costs I have seen quoted per camera (£30k+) seem extraordinarily high to me (I work in technology and I can't see more then £5k of cost per camera). Given that there are now 5000+ cameras that equates to a capital cost of £150m+, a huge amount of money, however if fines are now being collected at the rate of £150m+ per year this means a return on investment of well over 100% per annum (I wish I could find any business where I could guarantee a return of over 10% per year with no risk).

Given that this money collected is 'disbursed' in a way that has not to date been able to be scrutinised by the public what are we to do? The problem we have is that the argument 'we want to go faster' will rightly and effectively be shot to pieces. What most of us want is the ability to set appropriate speeds on the roads and then drive sensibly within them.

Given that it's the nature of all of us to pay the fine and move on (it's simpler and life's to short to fight silly battles) then the collectors are relying on the fragmented nature of the payer to continue the system as is.

Well the freedom of information act and a group of well advised and motivated individuals could make a huge difference to the methodologies currently used. The first rule of challenging any organisation of this type is follow the money.

Regards

Welcome.

I agree with most of what you say but to chuck in my twopennyworth on a couple of bits:


Personally I think it may be worse than that. Remember that Messrs Blair, Darling, Prescott, and if you're unlucky enough to live in London, Livingstone all want to Curb Car Use and get you Out Of Your Car and Onto Public Transport. Therefore anything that makes driving unpleasant, restrictive and expensive is OK with them, and if it makes money on the side then that's even better. The front line responsibility for the beastly cameras is, of course, devolved away from central government, so that not too much mud sticks!


Why do you always signal when changing lanes if the motorway is empty? (I imagine you don't mean completely empty, otherwise you'd be in lane 1 with no need to change lanes!) There are times when a signal is not necessary, typically when returning to lane 1 after overtaking with no other traffic ahead. The principles described in Roadcraft encourage you to actively think about every aspect of your driving, which is where the real safety comes from, and that can include deliberately not signalling where there would be no benefit, instead of just doing it anyway because you're on autopilot. It's definitely worth your getting hold of a copy if you haven't already.

Hi John

The reason I indicate even on an empty motorway is although I believe it's empty that doesn't mean I haven't made a mistake!!

Many years ago I was coming off a motorway (fairly empty) in the dusk hours and as I exited lane 2 to lane 1 in preperation to using the exit ramp a motorbike screamed up the inside of me with no lights on. It frightened the sh*t out of me frankly (came out of nowhere and no lights at dusk, I never saw him coming). Ever since then I've consciously always indicated even if I believe the rest of the road is empty as a discipline in case I'm wrong.

P

Welcome, crikey that's a big 2nd post. A lot of what you have said, will be found in many peoples opinions on this forum.
I often wonder about the claims of road safety, and the positioning of cameras, especially mobile cameras.
For instance if you are driving past Bridgend heading east on the M4, you will often see a mobile van on one of the bridges just after the long right bend. This van is obviously there because it can catch cars coming out of the bend which has a long straight berfore it. About 2 miles up, there are roadwroks with a 50 mph limit, which is fair because the works cause the lanes to narrow. Now I would say this is an obvious place to put a camera, because at points there are only 2 narrow lanes, and things do get a bit tight.
Ask yourself, why isnt the van there premoting road safety, instead of where it is, and the only answer I can think of is to generate money. and As for the CPS, don't get me started, I wouldn't dare print my personal or proffesional opions on them

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

Thanks for the welcome Neil

I know that you're best not voicing an opinion of the CPS in this forum, but I've had enough experience of the court system in civil matters to say over the years it's truly undermined my belief in justice. The lack of efficiency and willingness to mess people around leaves me staggered, it seems to me that it's only function in many instances is not to serve justice, but instead to serve the needs of the enormous number of people employed either directly or indirectly by it.

I was a witness at a murder trial in Scotland about 5 years ago (didn't see the murder but knew some background on the victim that was relevent in mitigation). The case got postponed three times and when the date was finally set I said I could only attend if I flew up on the day and back that night due to pressure of work (cost of flight up and back was going to be about £150). The court argued with me that I should get the train up the evening before (£75 return cost) and get a room at a cost of about £25 then a train back in the evening after giving evidence. When I explained my work commitments we toed and froed for about a week before they finally agreed. So I attended and sent my expenses bill in for a total of about £175 (flights + taxi's to court), they then bounced it and refused to pay me more then £100. In disgust I told them to stuff their cheque and I've never intervened in a situation where I may be called as a witness again.

You may think this unreasonable but when professional witness's are getting paid up to £400 per day + expenses and I can't even get my travelling expenses (never mind the loss of salary) I really had enough.

What's really saddening is it's the police who have to bear the brunt of this, they are the ones measured on crime clear up figures (i.e. convictions) but at the same time they are continually treated as the lowest rung on the ladder of the system they serve. Rant mode over!!

When we constantly have 'local hooligans' causing massive disruption and the system can't seem to stop them, but drivers getting set up to be hammered it does get me cheesed off.

P

Well done, damn good rant. I totally sympathise with your experience. It may seem to some that the rights of the criminal are put before those of the victim or witness. The system does try to minimise inconvenience, but as is clear in your case does not allways get it right.
I will say though, that having been at the supposedly sharp end of the legal system for some time, I am a bit cheesed off with some aspects of it. I joined to lock criminals up, and make people feel safer in their homes, but it seems evermore that I am unable to do this due to increasing bureacracy.
Oh well thats my slightly veiled rant over with, the whole system does need overhauling (please start with P.A.C.E.), but I wonder if I will see it in my time.
Remember the noisy minority will nearly allways beat the silent majority.

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

There are some moves by police and CPS to support victims/witnesses more so than previously. I am a family liaison officer (recently appointed) and have been involved with families of bereaved through RTCs. The difference this makes to the families concerned - awareness of the processes and being kept up to date, has a real impact on their ability to deal with the rigours of the investigation. It also helps the investigating officer deal specifically with the primary job, that of investigating the RTC.
Similarly the CPS have recently instigated their No Witness No Justice program which recognises the value of keeping witnesses onside. The idea being that each witness, particularly in serious criminal matters will have a dedicated CPS officer who will keep the witness informed and up to speed about the investigation. He or she will be abnle to answer queries as they arise and will be a contact point for the witness whenever they need advice or help. Quite a difference from leaving them uninformed until the letter drops through the door months later, and they were probably told by the BiB not to worry, they wouldn't likely have to attend court .

So changes are afoot. As Neil says, police discussion about CPS will no doubt have introduced 50% of all swear words currently in use in the English language , but at least they are trying in this particular respect.

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

Ian

I agree -- darned good rant and most can empathise with what yiou say there.

Don't get me started on CPS....Neil and Ian have said most of it anyway. Bureaucracy, political correctness .. it all undermines the legal system.

_________________
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.

Only 50% of the swear words!! You Sir are a Liar

The last time I heard Police talk about the CPS I heard words I'd never heard before...and I used to play Rugby!!

P