Speeding Ticket

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

I'm not sure that evidence backs this up. Having had conversations with the representative of the DIC/SACs in our area, he's proud, and happy in a business sense that those who came to his Driver Improvement classes were a completely different demographic compared to those who came for Speed Awareness courses, implying that those who get speeding tickets don't crash.

You don't half come out with some rubbish don't you?

That is the most feeble excuse for speeding that I have ever heard. The fact is that the faster you are driving, the less chance you have to react. And accidents at higher speeds cause more injuries and fatalities.

You have claimed before that you job is RTC investigation. Well you have well and truly blown that fantasy out of the window now.

brat wrote: »

We'll have to disagree on this one. I can't do it.

You must be sitting far to close to the steering wheel then.

brat wrote: »

I agree to a degree. Appropriate speed should be apparent to a responsible compliant driver just by looking out of the windscreen.
Unfortunately it's an instinctive imperative to check your speed when approaching a speed camera, even if you're under the limit. It's almost impossible not to do it.

You wouldn't need to if you already knew you were driving within the speed limit.

Jamie_Carter

Buellguy wrote: »

Just don't even start me on the people who brake for spped cameras even though they are doing UNDER the speed limit

They wouldn't need to if they were aware of their speed.

Buellguy

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

They wouldn't need to if they were aware of their speed.

Agreed - I am definately more in favour of bringing back more traffic officers than cameras though - can we please have a bit more discretion.
I'd rather see the tailgaters, no insurance, dangerous drivers etc done rather than someone who is 5 mph over the limit on an empty road
Prime example - thick fog - someone doing 50 on a motorway is very probably dangerous but won't get done by a camera - but probably would by a police patrol

brat

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

brat wrote:

I'm not sure that evidence backs this up. Having had conversations with the representative of the DIC/SACs in our area, he's proud, and happy in a business sense that those who came to his Driver Improvement classes were a completely different demographic compared to those who came for Speed Awareness courses, implying that those who get speeding tickets don't crash.

You don't half come out with some rubbish don't you?

That is the most feeble excuse for speeding that I have ever heard.

Perhaps if you occasionally stopped to engage brain, you would recognise that this is not an excuse for speeding. It is no more than decent anecdotal recognition that there may be no useful road safety connection whatever between those who get speeding tickets, and those who crash.
You really need to try to grasp what people are saying before you attempt shabby ridicule. Otherwise it backfires.
Other evidence which offers a similar anecdotal recognition is the inverse association between age groups who crash and age groups who get speeding tickets. 17 to 25 year olds have very high crash frequencies per unit distance travelled, yet receive relatively few speed tickets per unit distance. Similarly the elderly are more crash involved per mile travelled yet are lowly represented in speed ticket stats. If you compare this against the safest age demographic, namely the 45 to 55 year olds, they are the safest drivers in terms of crashes per mile, yet are the highest recipients of speed tickets per mile. That’s a pretty strong indication to me that there is little or no positive association between speed tickets received and crash frequency.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

The fact is that the faster you are driving, the less chance you have to react.

That doesn’t necessarily correspond either. You need to take your theories out into the real world and watch them routinely fail. Then you can start to think about why this is.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

And accidents at higher speeds cause more injuries and fatalities.

No dispute there.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You have claimed before that you job is RTC investigation. Well you have well and truly blown that fantasy out of the window now.

I know many people who "know not that they know not". Seems like I just met another.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You must be sitting far to close to the steering wheel then.

My seat is as far back as it can go for my leg length. I wondered if your theory was just leggist – ie my legs are too short. But I asked my other five colleagues tonight if, like you, they could see an accurate speedo reading via their peripheral vision when looking directly ahead – none of them could – including a colleague who is 6 feet 9 inches. We came to the conclusion that you’re making it up.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

brat wrote:

Appropriate speed should be apparent to a responsible compliant driver just by looking out of the windscreen.
Unfortunately it's an instinctive imperative to check your speed when approaching a speed camera, even if you're under the limit. It's almost impossible not to do it.

You wouldn't need to if you already knew you were driving within the speed limit.

When discussing instinctive reaction to something, it’s no good trying to say what they should do, you need to recognise what they actually do, and work to resolve those issues.

Jamie_Carter

Buellguy wrote: »

Agreed - I am definately more in favour of bringing back more traffic officers than cameras though - can we please have a bit more discretion.
I'd rather see the tailgaters, no insurance, dangerous drivers etc done rather than someone who is 5 mph over the limit on an empty road
Prime example - thick fog - someone doing 50 on a motorway is very probably dangerous but won't get done by a camera - but probably would by a police patrol

Unfortunately traffic officers cost money, but cameras make money. So what do you think will happen?

Variable cameras like those used on the M25 (west section), could probably be adjusted to the road conditions.

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

Perhaps if you occasionally stopped to engage brain, you would recognise that this is not an excuse for speeding. It is no more than decent anecdotal recognition that there may be no useful road safety connection whatever between those who get speeding tickets, and those who crash.
You really need to try to grasp what people are saying before you attempt shabby ridicule. Otherwise it backfires.
Other evidence which offers a similar anecdotal recognition is the inverse association between age groups who crash and age groups who get speeding tickets. 17 to 25 year olds have very high crash frequencies per unit distance travelled, yet receive relatively few speed tickets per unit distance. Similarly the elderly are more crash involved per mile travelled yet are lowly represented in speed ticket stats. If you compare this against the safest age demographic, namely the 45 to 55 year olds, they are the safest drivers in terms of crashes per mile, yet are the highest recipients of speed tickets per mile. That’s a pretty strong indication to me that there is little or no positive association between speed tickets received and crash frequency.

How many serious RTCs have you been to??? Probably none! Well I can tell you for a fact that most of them can be attributed either partly or fully to excess speed.

You use statistics to try and twist the conclusion around. 17 to 25 year olds have more collisions due to lack of experience. The elderly have more collisions due to poor reactions, eyesight, confusion related to old age, etc... 45 to 55 year olds are usually more experienced, but aren't yet at the stage where they have old age related symptoms as mentioned above.

It is also the 45 to 55 age group who it is estimated are more likely to drink and drive. But going by your theories, you would conclude that drinking and driving doesn't cause collisions.

The fact is that most collisions happen at very low speeds, in busy traffic, in built up areas, and in car parks. And these are the collisions that aremore likely to be caused by the young and elderly, because they are usually caused by lack of judgement of distance or speed, or poor reactions in close proximity to other vehicles.

brat wrote: »

That doesn’t necessarily correspond either. You need to take your theories out into the real world and watch them routinely fail. Then you can start to think about why this is.

Even common sense would tell you that it does correspond. And I (unlike you) am using experience in the real world. Are you trained in high speed driving?

brat wrote: »

I know many people who "know not that they know not". Seems like I just met another.

Did you actually read that?

All I can work out from it is that you are backing down from your claim to be an RTC investigator. :rotfl::rotfl:

brat wrote: »

My seat is as far back as it can go for my leg length. I wondered if your theory was just leggist – ie my legs are too short. But I asked my other five colleagues tonight if, like you, they could see an accurate speedo reading via their peripheral vision when looking directly ahead – none of them could – including a colleague who is 6 feet 9 inches. We came to the conclusion that you’re making it up.

Who said anything about an accurate speedo reading?? You don't need to if you know roughly on the dial where the speed limits are.

Even if you had to glance at the speedo, this would be so quick that your focus wouldn't be adjusted from that used to view the road. If you have a problem doing this, then you aren't safe to be driving, because you wouldn't be able to make proper use of your mirrors either.

brat wrote: »

When discussing instinctive reaction to something, it’s no good trying to say what they should do, you need to recognise what they actually do, and work to resolve those issues.

And you are making up what they actually do, based on what people use as excuses.

brat

Jamie, I'll try not to rise again to your tawdry ad hominems which you seem so fond of. Could you please do us all a favour and try to rise to the challenge of debate without resorting to them.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

How many serious RTCs have you been to??? Probably none! Well I can tell you for a fact that most of them can be attributed either partly or fully to excess speed.

Even assuming your above point to be true, which it very likely isn't, it's still not the relevant point. The point relevant to the thread is whether speed cameras could have prevented these collisions, and indeed, whether they might be directly or indirectly responsible for an increase in KSIs

You use statistics to try and twist the conclusion around. 17 to 25 year olds have more collisions due to lack of experience. The elderly have more collisions due to poor reactions, eyesight, confusion related to old age, etc... 45 to 55 year olds are usually more experienced, but aren't yet at the stage where they have old age related symptoms as mentioned above.

17 to 25 year olds, or perhaps more accurately, 17 to 20 year olds have KSIs because they occasionally drive at speeds that their limited experience can't cope with. They are one of the most significant groups in terms of fatal collision causers, yet their dangerous behaviours are hardly ever caught by speed cams; why? Because they speed in areas and at times of day where there is no likelihood of a speed camera. They know where local cameras are and manipulate and avoid them.
Weekend sports bikers are the same. The purpose of their drive is different to most other journeys. They often use rural roads as a track. They know where speed cameras are, and avoid them like the plague.
Elderly drivers are more KSI involved because their (often night) eyesight is poor, their reactions slower, their hazard perception may be off the pace. They're often involved in slow speed manoeuvring collisions, some of which can have serious consequences to other vulnerable road users. Also their bodily frailty often means that they suffer more serious injuries from a collision that a younger person may walk out of.

It is also the 45 to 55 age group who it is estimated are more likely to drink and drive.

Again, assuming this is correct, and it may be, the speed cams have no way of targeting drink drivers

But going by your theories, you would conclude that drinking and driving doesn't cause collisions.

Not at all. The attitude and impairment caused by excess alcohol is a significant causal factor in over 25% of our county's fatal collisions. Cameras have no impact whatsoever in the recognition and targeting of these dangerous drivers. Indeed, their introduction has been partly responsible for the reduction in traffic police numbers over the last 15-20 years, so there is a decent case to argue that, in respect of drink drivers, (and disqual drivers, dangerous drivers, drug drivers, criminal drivers, uninsured drivers etc etc) the speed cameras have indirectly caused our roads to be more dangerous than they would be if they were never invented.

The fact is that most collisions happen at very low speeds, in busy traffic, in built up areas, and in car parks. And these are the collisions that aremore likely to be caused by the young and elderly, because they are usually caused by lack of judgement of distance or speed, or poor reactions in close proximity to other vehicles.

You're right, about 90% of all collisions are damage only. Young and old drivers are over-represented all the way through the collision severities.

Even common sense would tell you that it does correspond. And I (unlike you) am using experience in the real world.

There is a significant correlation between driving at one's appropriate speed for a road and optimum concentration. That additional level of concentration can give you a vital extra bit of time to react. Research conducted by Solomon and Cirillo back in the sixties and seventies concluded that the safest driving speed was the 85th to 90th percentile speed in open driving conditions. One of the primary reasons is that such a driver is more actively involved in his drive, concentrating, anticipating, using links etc.. He is generally more aware of the vehicles ahead, because they will feature in his plan. A slower driver is likely to be a more passive driver, not necessarily gleaning as much information from the road ahead, hence will be taken more by surprise by unexpected hazards.

Are you trained in high speed driving?

Yes.
You didn't ever tell me about your level of driver training, although you have regularly suggested it was superior to most. What's your driving experience please?

Who said anything about an accurate speedo reading?? You don't need to if you know roughly on the dial where the speed limits are.

Even if you had to glance at the speedo, this would be so quick that your focus wouldn't be adjusted from that used to view the road. If you have a problem doing this, then you aren't safe to be driving, because you wouldn't be able to make proper use of your mirrors either.

your second paragraph indicates to me that you've tried this again, and recognised that you can't get a speed reading from your speedo without physically looking down. When you do this, your eyes will automatically refocus. It's what they do, and it takes a finite time. Looking down, focussing on the speedo, assimilating the info, looking up and refocussing can take a good amount of time, perhaps two seconds, more if elderly.
You don't need to refocus when you look through a mirror because the distances you're looking at through the mirror are roughly the same your view ahead.
I'd be keen to hear from anyone who can read their analogue speedo sufficiently accurately from their peripheral view.

And you are making up what they actually do, based on what people use as excuses.

If you're saying I'm making up the fact that motorists instinctively look at their speedo when approaching a speed camera close to the limit, I'm pretty sure most drivers will agree that they do this.
As I say, it's important to deal with how drivers actually react to a hazard, rather than how they should behave in a perfect world.

alastairq

so far, this entire thread has focussed on how speed limits....and their enforcement [forget 'safety',.....this is about enforcement of the Law!].....affect you or I as a driver or rider.

No-one has yet noted that in fact speed limits are in place as much to allow other road users, be they drivers, riders, pedestrians, young, old, infirm, drunk, or even, you or I.....to cope with you or I as an individual driver of a mechanically-propelled motor vehicle.


As an example, next time any of you have to cross a 'main' road as a pedestrian...., or emerge from a side road, especially where the view to one side or other is perhaps a bit obscured.....consider how difficult such a simple task is made by those who ignore a speed limit....or where the limit is somewhat higher than you, or your Granny, feel happy to cope with?


The reality is, we use the roads in a thoroughly self-centred manner.

Too many drivers view their licences as nothing more than a 'travel pass'......and apply about as much consideration to the responsibilities that licence bestows, as they would to a travel pass..


As a consequence we see examples of aggressive behaviour of cyclists, horse riders, pedestrians, motor cyclists and drivers all being reported on forums like this one....but no-one bothers to figure out how it all started.

Drive within the Law....and save money in the process.

[There...properly in keeping with the ethos of MSE!]

brat

I want the speed limit to be respected rather than feared.

I don't believe that this happens with speed cameras. In towns loaded with cams locals speed up between them and slow for them. In other words they manipulate them. They also sometimes get frustrated by them, either because people in front slow down too much, or because they become the major focus of the motorist's concentration.

Our town doesn't have a speed cam in it, and we hardly get a complaint about speed. The police respond to particular concerns by active enforcement from time to time. It works well enough.

Speed cameras are mostly fixed, or, if actively operated, are operated from regular sites. This predictability means that those who really don't care to abide by limits can break them with even greater impunity than before, when police had plenty of time for targeted enforcement.

Speed cameras sit like a religious shrine, a monument to speed enforcement. That is about the limit of their effectiveness, conning those who want lower speeds that something is being done to make their streets safer. It couldn't be further from the truth.

hareng

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

So speed limits need to be set to allow for the worst drivers on the road, and not the best.

Mean while its the average and good drivers that are penalised.
I assume you know the stats for driving within the speed limit, drivers losing awareness the attributing factor.

Dont get me wrong i am not condoning, its taken them exactly 34 years to catch up with me on a technicality. Middle of no where 7.20am in the morning, two lane equal to 4 car width road, 15ft grass verges either side, nothing around, grabbed from 400 yards away up an incline.
There are times and places suited to road and conditions, not based on 60's poorer braking. Most cars will stop at least 50% sooner, but all we see is reduced speed limits and humps in built up areas based upon irrelevant facts to please the tax payer.