Speeding offence

smashingyour...

Guest101 wrote: »

Can you cite that please, i dont believe that FPN have been removed at all.

http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/support/traffic_offence_reports/

This is the new system. A course brings money to the force so that is usually offered before a ticket. Everyone is reported and someone else decides on how the offender is dealt with.

smashingyour...

hamishcat wrote: »

He was stopped in Powys but we live in Shropshire.

Don't know what they currently do. Your home force hasn't issued tickets at the roadside for some time.

hamishcat

Guest101 wrote: »

That means he'll get a summons.

If he gets a summons does that mean he has to go to court or can he just accept it by post.

Joe_Horner

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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.

The part in bold is nothing like the point I was making, and it's everything to do with politics.

The simple fact is that most accidents (fatal or otherwise) involve "experienced" drivers who are within the speed limit and sober. Those accidents are caused by driver error including impatience, aggression, lack of obeservation, downright incompetence and so on. Or (rarely) mechanical failure.

The very fact that we need speed limits and other assorted laws in the first place says that most drivers' are unable to reliably judge what's safe for themselves in any given situation. And being unable to judge what's safe when driving is incompetent!

Yet those aspects of driving receive very little publicity because that would be akin to walking up to someone in a car park and telling them they're probably not as good as they think they are. You'd probably get punched (or not re-elected as the case may be).

smashingyour...

hamishcat wrote: »

If he gets a summons does that mean he has to go to court or can he just accept it by post.

He can plead guilty by post.

Jamie_Carter

interstellaflyer wrote: »

I'm not defending his actions I'm just saying "people in glass houses" so many people on here willing to judge forgetting they were late teen/twenty something once.

I'm sure we all did things in our teens that we wouldn't want our kids to do. I had a motorbike, and had a couple of close shaves myself, but I certainly wouldn't want my kids to do the same, because I was lucky, and I can see that now.

Jamie_Carter

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The part in bold is nothing like the point I was making, and it's everything to do with politics.

The simple fact is that most accidents (fatal or otherwise) involve "experienced" drivers who are within the speed limit and sober. Those accidents are caused by driver error including impatience, aggression, lack of obeservation, downright incompetence and so on. Or (rarely) mechanical failure.

The very fact that we need speed limits and other assorted laws in the first place says that most drivers' are unable to reliably judge what's safe for themselves in any given situation. And being unable to judge what's safe when driving is incompetent!

Yet those aspects of driving receive very little publicity because that would be akin to walking up to someone in a car park and telling them they're probably not as good as they think they are. You'd probably get punched (or not re-elected as the case may be).

You are doing exactly what politicians do, by manipulating figures. Yes more RTCs may involve experienced drivers, but then there are many times more experienced drivers on the road than inexperienced. However percentage wise, per head of population for that group, inexperienced drivers are involved in far more RTCs than any other group.

What you are saying is like saying 18 year olds are 10X less likely to be involved in a fatal RTC, because they were only involved in 100 last year, compared to 1000 for the rest of the drivers on the road.

Joe_Horner

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You are doing exactly what politicians do, by manipulating figures. Yes more RTCs may involve experienced drivers, but then there are many times more experienced drivers on the road than inexperienced. However percentage wise, per head of population for that group, inexperienced drivers are involved in far more RTCs than any other group.

No I'm not. When you're killed in a crash, per-capita (or per-distance) accident rates for the driver who kills you don't matter - all that matters is that that particular driver, on that particular occasion made a mistake that cost you your life.

Seeing as most accidents (in straight numbers) are caused by poor driving by experienced, sober, non-speeding motorists, giving some publicity to the generally poor standards that cause that majority of accidents would be sensible.

But it wouldn't be politically wise because no-one wants to be told "you're not as good as you should be" and if you start telling all those drivers who aren't in a "high risk" category (but manage to have accidents) that they should be better then you're going to meet resistance - as you're so clearly proving at the moment!

Jamie_Carter

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No I'm not. When you're killed in a crash, per-capita (or per-distance) accident rates for the driver who kills you don't matter - all that matters is that that particular driver, on that particular occasion made a mistake that cost you your life.

Seeing as most accidents (in straight numbers) are caused by poor driving by experienced, sober, non-speeding motorists, giving some publicity to the generally poor standards that cause that majority of accidents would be sensible.

But it wouldn't be politically wise because no-one wants to be told "you're not as good as you should be" and if you start telling all those drivers who aren't in a "high risk" category (but manage to have accidents) that they should be better then you're going to meet resistance - as you're so clearly proving at the moment!

You are still twisting figures. More drivers with less than two years experience are involved in RTCs than those with lets say 15 to 17 years experience. And you can't argue with that.

smashingyour...

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You are still twisting figures. More drivers with less than two years experience are involved in RTCs than those with lets say 15 to 17 years experience. And you can't argue with that.

Are you getting your statistics from somewhere or just making them up as usual?