Speeding offence

Joe_Horner

interstellaflyer wrote: »

certainly in my young driver days of the early 80s the only time you were likely to get done for speeding is if you were unlucky enough not to notice a traffic car.

Not to mention the (traditional in my area at least) trip down the pub to celebrate passing. Then drive home of course, just "take it easy and don't use such-and-such road tonight" (courtesy of the local off-duty copper as he bought you a drink). But, as you say, attitudes (and enforcement) were different back then.

Oddly, despite our best efforts, we didn't manage to wipe out the human race or even kill all the nuns, babies and polar bears!

Jamie_Carter

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Not to mention the (traditional in my area at least) trip down the pub to celebrate passing. Then drive home of course, just "take it easy and don't use such-and-such road tonight" (courtesy of the local off-duty copper as he bought you a drink). But, as you say, attitudes (and enforcement) were different back then.

And road deaths are now much lower than they were then.

fivetide

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

And road deaths are now much lower than they were then.

True despite the mass of cars on the road (and other vehicles) 2012 was the lowest year for deaths since records began.

Guest101

interstellaflyer wrote: »

A bit harsh, I doubt many of us were saintly drivers when we were young, I know I wasn't and I'll admit it, it's easy to look down on new and young drivers when you're so much older, however, remember, rules have got tougher and speeding enforcement is higher on the agenda than it used to be, certainly in my young driver days of the early 80s the only time you were likely to get done for speeding is if you were unlucky enough not to notice a traffic car.

That's why he got a 'final warning' in the shape of 3 points. It's to say, dont do it again or you'll get done.

Any driver doing 46 (and i doubt that was the top speed, just the speed caught at) in a 30, which is residential; is shocking. Particualrly an inexperienced driver.

Joe_Horner

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

And road deaths are now much lower than they were then.

Oh, without a doubt. But attributing that reduction to any particular initiative - such as the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 under which this guy will have his licence revoked - is virtually impossible.

eta: looking at the statistics in a little more detail rather than the headline rates makes interesting reading:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9273/rrcgb2011-00.pdf

The most commonly reported factors in both fatal and non-fatal accidents were plain old driver error of one form or another - dwarfing the statistics fo speeding, drink, drugs etc.

But, politically, it's ok to tell people they'll go to Hell for being X mph (or Y mg/ 100ml) over an arbitary limit. It's most certainly not politically ok to tell people that most of them are just !!!! drivers who are more dangerous than the skillful drunk down the road and should never have got a licence!

fivetide

Guest101 wrote: »

Any driver doing 46 (and i doubt that was the top speed, just the speed caught at) in a 30, which is residential; is shocking. Particualrly an inexperienced driver.

I thought the same although did have a slight thought on inexperience.

At that speed, the speedo would have been showing an easy 50. The only possible reason (aside from total stupidity) is inexperience and coming from a national speed into a 30 with a trap set at the 30 signs.

Appreciate you should be doing 30 as you get to the signs but few people do and continue to slow down as they get into the built up area.

Not saying it is right but it might not be that he's been blasting past a school as the kids leave. He is a very silly boy either way though.

Jamie_Carter

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Oh, without a doubt. But attributing that reduction to any particular initiative - such as the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 under which this guy will have his licence revoked - is virtually impossible.

I'm not. It is probably down to a number of factors, especially vehicle construction. But when you consider that young drivers are involved in far more collisions than any other group, then the fact that they are 1) more likely to be caught, and 2) more likely to lose their license, must be a huge contributing factor.

Also you mentioned drink driving, which is also far less common now. Although this menace has been replaced with mobile phones. On Monday evening I approached a junction with blues and sirens going. But a woman in her BMW refused to get off her glitzy iphone, so that she would have two hands free to drive out of our way. So we actually had to sit there and wait for her to fumble about with her steering wheel, gears, and hand brake, with just one hand. :mad:

fivetide

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But, politically, it's ok to tell people they'll go to Hell for being X mph (or Y mg/ 100ml) over an arbitary limit. It's most certainly not politically ok to tell people that most of them are just !!!! drivers who are more dangerous than the skillful drunk down the road and should never have got a licence!

I think that was the point of these adverts with square faced former racer David Coulthard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMWyIsBCreE

DaveF327

hamishcat wrote: »

If so, does the court date appear straight away on the first correspondence.

Depends on the paperwork he was given when he was stopped. Was he given a fixed penalty notice?

Jamie_Carter

Joe_Horner wrote: »

eta: looking at the statistics in a little more detail rather than the headline rates makes interesting reading:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9273/rrcgb2011-00.pdf

The most commonly reported factors in both fatal and non-fatal accidents were plain old driver error of one form or another - dwarfing the statistics fo speeding, drink, drugs etc.

I'm not arguing with that. However driver error is far more likely to happen with inexperienced drivers. And when those errors occur, if they are travelling at higher speeds, then reaction times are massively reduced.

Although speed alone isn't usually attributed as the cause of an RTC, it is a major contributing factor towards the seriousness of the RTC.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But, politically, it's ok to tell people they'll go to Hell for being X mph (or Y mg/ 100ml) over an arbitary limit. It's most certainly not politically ok to tell people that most of them are just !!!! drivers who are more dangerous than the skillful drunk down the road and should never have got a licence!

It's nothing to do with politics.

• Inexperience makes you more likely to have a collision.
• Impairment due to alcohol or drugs makes driver error more likely. And slows reactions. Also makes drivers think that they are more capable than they actually are.
• Using a mobile (without hands free) whilst driving makes you statistically 4x more likely to have an RTC than someone who is just over the drink drive limit
• Excess speed makes your reaction time shorter, and increases impact.

So using the excuse "group 'x' is more likely to have an RTC than me, just doesn't wash.