Speeding Ticket

brat

TadleyBaggie wrote: »

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.

Ah, I've been a member of pepipoo for some time, I'll have a look, although last time I looked (yesterday) the only one I saw was someone saying his brother got one. That's anecdote, not evidence.

If they were enforcing at 31mph then the gaussian distribution of speed around the mean would require a significant proportion of those ticketed to be at 31mph and a proportion of them would be complaining bitterly about it.

brat

Remote speed enforcement has been a money maker, a method of cheap enforcement, a gauche numb tool acting as a cuckoo in the nest of road safety.

One of the criterion for siting back in the day was that cameras could only be sited where the 85th percentile speed was at or over the prosecutable speed. That had a road safety ring to it, it sounded like they were trying to stop speeders in roads where the speeds were highest. In fact, all they were doing was siting their machines in places where motorists naturally and safely exceeded the speed limit because the hazard definition of the road suggested they could.

One other criteria for siting was that the road should have had an accident history. This was one of the most despicable cynical DfT ploys, which allowed them to claim that the siting of the speed camera caused massive reductions in the number of collisions, when in fact the statistics used were caused by a regression back to the mean from an artifically high starting point.

I'm fortunate to live in an area where there are very few speed cameras. The 'downside' of that is that my driving is natural, safe, and responsive to hazard. I respect the road safety purpose of the speed limit but do not fear it. That makes me a potential victim of speed cameras in other areas because my safe driving style has not been compromised to the same degree as those who live in their shadow every day.

Tobster86

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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.

This is exactly what I'm referring to. The human perception of a safe speed is one where judgement is made that full vehicle control can be achieved in the event of any forseeable emergency. This is often above the speed limit.

Many speed limits are arbitrarily set too low, for reasons of revenue raising and anti-motoring sentimentality. A brief examination of various aspects of political history proves this.

Therefore, drivers are forced to choose one of two possible options:
-Drive at a safe but illegal speed; creating an additional concentration burden on enforcement countermeasure.
-Drive artificially slow; either by detracting attention away from the road to examine the speedometer, or by building the ultimately unnecessary skill of being able to accurately perceive an arbitrary speed that doesn't relate to the road or conditions.

The 'bad driver' that would otherwise drive too fast if no speed limit were in place would highly likely be completely fixated to their speedometer under these circumstances and completely unaware of potential hazards.

Road safety should be about raising standards, not lowering them!

Jamie_Carter

misimp wrote: »

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

If it is a 30mph zone in a built up area, then it should actually be easier to judge your speed. This is because buildings, parked vehicles, etc.. would usually be much closer, and give more of an indication of your speed.

Jamie_Carter

TadleyBaggie wrote: »

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.

You have to take some things on Pepipoo with a pinch of salt, as it is an activist organisation, and as such will be prone to be biased, and often exaggerate.

Notmyrealname

misimp wrote: »

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

Perhaps you should go and get some driving lessons seeing as you'd fail a driving test if you did. If a learner can manage to do it, why can't you?

brat

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

If it is a 30mph zone in a built up area, then it should actually be easier to judge your speed. This is because buildings, parked vehicles, etc.. would usually be much closer, and give more of an indication of your speed.

That is usually the case. A town centre often provides the perfect example of a compliant driver driving at the speed appropriate to the circumstances. They will slow when hazards increase and increase speed when hazards diminish or the road widens. The speed limit has little influence on this natural speed adjustment, it’s usually done at speeds well within the limits.

This type of driving is absolutely key to road safety, the individual responsible recognition of hazards followed by the appropriate response to them. Much of this instinctive responsive driving is done without those actions registering in the top level of our conscious awareness, but the responses are quick, and right.

The problem arises when the hazard definition diminishes, causing ones speed to naturally increase. The speed will not increase to an inappropriately high level because you have to activate your ‘conscious’ awareness to press the ‘inappropriate’ button. It will also not stay at an inappropriately low level until you activate your ‘conscious’ awareness. Unfortunately the speed limit is now that inappropriately low speed, and unless you kick yourself out of your natural instinctive safe driving mode, your speed will rise above the limit.

There are many villages towns and cities where you will recognise those low hazard areas where ones speed instinctively increases. They are usually identified by the presence of a static speed camera!

Jamie_Carter

Tobster86 wrote: »

This is exactly what I'm referring to. The human perception of a safe speed is one where judgement is made that full vehicle control can be achieved in the event of any forseeable emergency. This is often above the speed limit.

Many speed limits are arbitrarily set too low, for reasons of revenue raising and anti-motoring sentimentality. A brief examination of various aspects of political history proves this.

Therefore, drivers are forced to choose one of two possible options:
-Drive at a safe but illegal speed; creating an additional concentration burden on enforcement countermeasure.
-Drive artificially slow; either by detracting attention away from the road to examine the speedometer, or by building the ultimately unnecessary skill of being able to accurately perceive an arbitrary speed that doesn't relate to the road or conditions.

The 'bad driver' that would otherwise drive too fast if no speed limit were in place would highly likely be completely fixated to their speedometer under these circumstances and completely unaware of potential hazards.

Road safety should be about raising standards, not lowering them!

I'm not saying that some limits aren't set too low. But as I've said previously, they have to be set to allow for the worst drivers on the road, and well within the limit of good drivers.

If people get used to complying with speed limits, then they won't have to keep looking at their speedo, because good speed judgement is part of good driving.

Most of the people who complain about speed cameras are those who have been caught speeding, or those who like to drive in excess of the speed limit on a regular basis. Well if they can't judge their speed without having to take their eyes off the road, then that makes them bad drivers. So they should be driving well within the speed limits.

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

That is usually the case. A town centre often provides the perfect example of a compliant driver driving at the speed appropriate to the circumstances. They will slow when hazards increase and increase speed when hazards diminish or the road widens. The speed limit has little influence on this natural speed adjustment, it’s usually done at speeds well within the limits.

This type of driving is absolutely key to road safety, the individual responsible recognition of hazards followed by the appropriate response to them. Much of this instinctive responsive driving is done without those actions registering in the top level of our conscious awareness, but the responses are quick, and right.

The problem arises when the hazard definition diminishes, causing ones speed to naturally increase. The speed will not increase to an inappropriately high level because you have to activate your ‘conscious’ awareness to press the ‘inappropriate’ button. It will also not stay at an inappropriately low level until you activate your ‘conscious’ awareness. Unfortunately the speed limit is now that inappropriately low speed, and unless you kick yourself out of your natural instinctive safe driving mode, your speed will rise above the limit.

There are many villages towns and cities where you will recognise those low hazard areas where ones speed instinctively increases. They are usually identified by the presence of a static speed camera!

Thanks for that, but it was a very long and drawn out way of saying what I had already said.

What none of us have mentioned is that if you are sitting in a good driving position, then you will be able to see your speedo in your peripheral vision. So most of these people who blame the fact that they have to constantly watch their speedo, as an excuse for their collision, are either in a poor driving position, or they are making it up, and they were actually distracted by something else (often using a mobile). In either case they should have allowed enough room to stop safely, and avoid a collision.

Wongsky

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

What none of us have mentioned is that if you are sitting in a good driving position, then you will be able to see your speedo in your peripheral vision. So most of these people who blame the fact that they have to constantly watch their speedo, as an excuse for their collision, are either in a poor driving position, or they are making it up, and they were actually distracted by something else (often using a mobile). In either case they should have allowed enough room to stop safely, and avoid a collision.

Or are simply incompetent.

I say that literally, as opposed to metaphorically.

If we expect that drivers, when taking their practical test, can drive to a good standard, observe other traffic and road users, make good progress, yet not exceed the speed limit - then if people can't manage to do so once they've had the benefit of passing that, and more experience, then something is wrong.

Having to continually monitor your speedo, in order to not fall foul of speed detection, and cited as a cause of distraction or to the detriment of your normal driving, is a big crock. If we expect learner drivers to be able to manage it on their driving tests, we should be able to do it with additional experience.