Speeding Ticket

Jamie_Carter

TKA25 wrote: »

I've attended far more RTCs than I care to remember and seen first hand the consequences of bad driving.

Very few of the fatalities I've been to involve somebody doing 45mph on a 40mph dual carriageway in good weather, in a modern vehicle, with a good open view of any forward hazards. Yet this is the type of motorist targeted by revenue raising speed cameras and vans.

I'm all for prosecuted those driving too fast for the presenting road conditions, whether or not that involves exceeding the statutory speed limit.

Prosecuting motorists for going a couple of MPH over the speed limit just disillusions otherwise law abiding citizens and paints the police in a bad light. Given that we police by consent in this country, I would much rather be keeping that large section of the public on the police's side.

I'm sure you agree that more police traffic patrols would reduce fatalities more than yet another metal speed camera, but obviously one is much cheaper than the other.

Well maybe you should get your facts right, and tell us where you would be prosecuted for doing 45mph in a 40 limit?

And where do you draw the line, 50, 60, or 70mph in a 40???

So you haven't been to RTCs where pedestrians, people tending to broken down vehicles, slow moving vehicles, or stray animals have been collided with on dual carriageways, resulting in fatalities?

A speed limit is there as a safe driving limit, and not a target to exceed.

You also need to remember that some limits are in place to prevent constant speeding up and then slowing down of traffic, that often causes more congestion and minor shunts, that often cause more hold ups on the roads.

misimp

TKA25 wrote: »

I've attended far more RTCs than I care to remember and seen first hand the consequences of bad driving.

Very few of the fatalities I've been to involve somebody doing 45mph on a 40mph dual carriageway in good weather, in a modern vehicle, with a good open view of any forward hazards. Yet this is the type of motorist targeted by revenue raising speed cameras and vans.

I'm all for prosecuted those driving too fast for the presenting road conditions, whether or not that involves exceeding the statutory speed limit.

Prosecuting motorists for going a couple of MPH over the speed limit just disillusions otherwise law abiding citizens and paints the police in a bad light. Given that we police by consent in this country, I would much rather be keeping that large section of the public on the police's side.

I'm sure you agree that more police traffic patrols would reduce fatalities more than yet another metal speed camera, but obviously one is much cheaper than the other.

I must agree with you there

I find myself spending too much time watching the speedo rather than the road nowadays

What really bugs me though is the farcical insistence that this is all about 'road safety'

It is entirely possible for someone who is a safe and defensive driver to get banned under totting up for speeding....yet there are loads of drivers out there who have had several accidents in a relaively short period yet are never prosecuted and have a clean licence

I recall the day when the police attended and investigated most accidents and almost invariably at least one of the drivers involved was prosecuted for driving without due care and attention.
These days it doesn't seem to matter how many accidents you have/cause so long as you do it under the speed limit

B

TKA25

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Well maybe you should get your facts right, and tell us where you would be prosecuted for doing 45mph in a 40 limit?

And where do you draw the line, 50, 60, or 70mph in a 40???

So you haven't been to RTCs where pedestrians, people tending to broken down vehicles, slow moving vehicles, or stray animals have been collided with on dual carriageways, resulting in fatalities?

A speed limit is there as a safe driving limit, and not a target to exceed.

You also need to remember that some limits are in place to prevent constant speeding up and then slowing down of traffic, that often causes more congestion and minor shunts, that often cause more hold ups on the roads.

I draw the line where a suitably trained police officer believes that the motorist was driving too fast given the presenting road conditions. On roads with excellent visibility, in good weather and in a well maintained vehicle, that might be 70mph in a 40mph zone. On an icy road, outside a primary school at 3pm, with poor visibility and in a heap of junk, that is almost certainly going to be less than 20mph.

I've been to plenty of RTCs including some freak accidents where no-one was to blame and both parties were just very unfortunate. If you see a broken down vehicle or pedestrian about to cross then you slow down. If you can't see them because they're just over the brow of a hill or around a sharp corner, then you're going to be slowing down anyway so that you're still able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Speed limits do compensate for those poor drivers who can't drive to a reasonable standard, but in an ideal world, such drivers shouldn't be on the road. I agree that speed limits probably save lives, but it is an incredibly large sledgehammer cracking a fairly small nut. If you lowered the NSL to 40mph, you would undoubtedly save even more lives, but where do you stop? How about just ensuring drivers are educated to a standard where they are able to decide the safe limit for themselves. I'm aware that's a very idealistic viewpoint however.

I agree with the idea of traffic calming, but we come back to driving standards yet again. If the idiots who speed up and then slam on their brakes were taken off the road, you wouldn't need the reduced limits, but until such drivers have their licences revoked, I can put up with doing 60mph on the motorway knowing that I might arrive a bit quicker. I also see well marked average speed cameras as the lesser of the 3 evils.

Jamie_Carter

misimp wrote: »

I must agree with you there

I find myself spending too much time watching the speedo rather than the road nowadays

What really bugs me though is the farcical insistence that this is all about 'road safety'

It is entirely possible for someone who is a safe and defensive driver to get banned under totting up for speeding....yet there are loads of drivers out there who have had several accidents in a relaively short period yet are never prosecuted and have a clean licence

I recall the day when the police attended and investigated most accidents and almost invariably at least one of the drivers involved was prosecuted for driving without due care and attention.
These days it doesn't seem to matter how many accidents you have/cause so long as you do it under the speed limit

B

I agree that it can be distracting if you have to constantly keep an eye on your speedo. But experienced drivers should be able to roughly judge their speed without having to do so. Especially withing the flexibility allowed.

Unfortunately it is down to police resources that many collisions aren't investigated by the police. But all those involving injuries should be. I suppose you could argue that it's the people who are most likely to cause injuries who should be prosecuted, and that generally tends to be those who drive at higher speeds. Because most serious injuries happen in higher speed collisions.

TKA25

misimp wrote: »

I find myself spending too much time watching the speedo rather than the road nowadays

What really bugs me though is the farcical insistence that this is all about 'road safety'

You're not the only one, believe me. I've had the not-so pleasant experience of telling a parent that their daughter was fighting for her life in ITU after being hit by a car at 30mph, directly in front of a speed camera. The driver admitted at the scene that she was watching the speedo intently as she already had 3 points for setting off a camera, and as she passed only 18 months ago, another 3 points would mean losing her licence. If she had her eyes on the road, she may have spotted the child.

I personally spend very little time watching the speedo when driving under emergency conditions, and teach my pupils the same. You should be able to get a feel for when you're going too fast for the conditions. I once received a NIP from a different force area after setting off a camera at 50mph in a 30mph zone. The forces policy is that emergency vehicles should not exceed speed limit + 50% when on blue lights. As I was going faster than 45mph, I was offered a FPN.

I refused to accept the ticket and somehow it ended up in court. I explained that as an advanced driver it was more importantly for me to be looking at the road instead of the speedo, and they agreed. They found me not guilty and advised the force that emergency drivers (driving to an emergency) can never be prosecuted for speeding, unless there is evidence that such a speed constituted dangerous or careless driving.

Jamie_Carter

TKA25 wrote: »

I draw the line where a suitably trained police officer believes that the motorist was driving too fast given the presenting road conditions. On roads with excellent visibility, in good weather and in a well maintained vehicle, that might be 70mph in a 40mph zone. On an icy road, outside a primary school at 3pm, with poor visibility and in a heap of junk, that is almost certainly going to be less than 20mph.

I've been to plenty of RTCs including some freak accidents where no-one was to blame and both parties were just very unfortunate. If you see a broken down vehicle or pedestrian about to cross then you slow down. If you can't see them because they're just over the brow of a hill or around a sharp corner, then you're going to be slowing down anyway so that you're still able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Speed limits do compensate for those poor drivers who can't drive to a reasonable standard, but in an ideal world, such drivers shouldn't be on the road. I agree that speed limits probably save lives, but it is an incredibly large sledgehammer cracking a fairly small nut. If you lowered the NSL to 40mph, you would undoubtedly save even more lives, but where do you stop? How about just ensuring drivers are educated to a standard where they are able to decide the safe limit for themselves. I'm aware that's a very idealistic viewpoint however.

I agree with the idea of traffic calming, but we come back to driving standards yet again. If the idiots who speed up and then slam on their brakes were taken off the road, you wouldn't need the reduced limits, but until such drivers have their licences revoked, I can put up with doing 60mph on the motorway knowing that I might arrive a bit quicker. I also see well marked average speed cameras as the lesser of the 3 evils.

Yes you do have an extremely idealistic viewpoint. But as you say, we don't live in an ideal world.

As I said earlier, most drivers rate their driving skills far higher than they actually are (especially young males). So who is going to grade drivers and say for example: Fred Bloggs is an excellent driver, and is allowed to drive 20mph over the speed limit. But Edith Smith is nervous with slow reactions, and doesn't read the road conditions, so she has to stick to the speed limit? And you also talk about people reading the road conditions, and the visibility, but unfortunately many people don't/can't. I'm sure you have also come across many drivers who you can't believe ever passed the test in the first place, because their standards must have dropped so much since passing. So speed limits have to take into consideration the worst drivers on the road.

Then you have to take into account that on motorways it isn't usually just the speed that causes accidents, but is often the speed differential between different vehicles.

I do personally think that speed limits on motorways should be increased to maybe 80mph. But then I have to remember a situation that I was faced with on an unlit dual carriageway, when I was suddenly faced with a car sideways across the road in front of me. Now I managed to stop in time, but would I have been able to do if I had been one of those people who thinks "I'm a good driver, so I'm safe to do 100mph on a nearly empty road at night"? Well the car behind me just managed to swerve into the outside lane, and then skidded past me and the other car, right through all the debris. And I had just overtaken him.

I'm not one of those who campaigns to reduce speed limits. But I do see many collisions caused by people who wrongly judge both their own driving skills, and the conditions. And think that it is ok for them to drive far quicker than anyone else on the road.

Jamie_Carter

TKA25 wrote: »

You're not the only one, believe me. I've had the not-so pleasant experience of telling a parent that their daughter was fighting for her life in ITU after being hit by a car at 30mph, directly in front of a speed camera. The driver admitted at the scene that she was watching the speedo intently as she already had 3 points for setting off a camera, and as she passed only 18 months ago, another 3 points would mean losing her licence. If she had her eyes on the road, she may have spotted the child.

I know exactly what you mean. There was an incident a while ago where a driver slammed on his brakes when he saw a mobile speed camera. And then another car ploughed into the back of him, caught fire, and both cars were gutted.

But this is where if people were taught to judge what speed they are doing when they learn to drive, then this shouldn't happen. But most of the people who can't judge their speed are either very inexperienced, or they are the ones who drive too fast most of the time, and then only slow down for speed cameras.

By the way, cruise control is brilliant for average speed cameras.

TKA25 wrote: »

I personally spend very little time watching the speedo when driving under emergency conditions, and teach my pupils the same. You should be able to get a feel for when you're going too fast for the conditions. I once received a NIP from a different force area after setting off a camera at 50mph in a 30mph zone. The forces policy is that emergency vehicles should not exceed speed limit + 50% when on blue lights. As I was going faster than 45mph, I was offered a FPN.

I refused to accept the ticket and somehow it ended up in court. I explained that as an advanced driver it was more importantly for me to be looking at the road instead of the speedo, and they agreed. They found me not guilty and advised the force that emergency drivers (driving to an emergency) can never be prosecuted for speeding, unless there is evidence that such a speed constituted dangerous or careless driving.

This was brought in by most emergency services, in many areas. But was then changed for exactly the reason you stated.

misimp

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I agree that it can be distracting if you have to constantly keep an eye on your speedo. But experienced drivers should be able to roughly judge their speed without having to do so. Especially withing the flexibility allowed.

Unfortunately it is down to police resources that many collisions aren't investigated by the police. But all those involving injuries should be. I suppose you could argue that it's the people who are most likely to cause injuries who should be prosecuted, and that generally tends to be those who drive at higher speeds. Because most serious injuries happen in higher speed collisions.

I agree re watching the speedo - it only takes an occasional glance on the open road just to ensure that your speed hasn't crept up...I was referring to 30mph limits in suburbs.
I doubt that any driver can keep to 30 without watching the speedo almost constantly, it is all too easy to creep up to 35 on an empty road - an a slight decline for example

B

brat

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

That's man int' pub gossip. They may however enforce at 10% above ie 33mph in a 30, 44mph in a 40, with a speed awareness course being the preferred disposal option at that speed.

They may enforce at 31, since the offence is exceeding the speed limit.[/QUOTE]
I understand that, but they don't enforce at 31.

TadleyBaggie

brat wrote: »

I understand that, but they don't enforce at 31.

Warwickshire have always been on the leading edge of enforcement limits, there are plenty of verifiable cases of NIPs for 33/34 for quite a while. The 31 in a 30 was reported on Pepipoo by a reliable source.