Speeding offence

Johno100

bigjl wrote: »

And this is before we get on the subject of cars being taken by the lorry load to Eastern Europe to be registered there and then driven back into the UK to be used or indeed sold on to criminals to provide a way to drive around with inpunity.

That's strange because I can't remember the last time I saw a right hand drive car on Eastern European plates. But let me guess there is a whole network of back street garages where the steering is swapped over as well.

Muscle750

Plus of course not forgetting the £45 million of unpaid fines from foreign drivers as figures released by the government a few weeks back and basically saying most were untraceable and the comment about cars being shipped back to Poland is very true I know of one salvage company that takes all their collections straight to the docks at Bristol to be loaded onto a boat

Car_54

There's nothing new about large quantities of "life expired" cars being shipped off to less prosperous countries where they are are still desirable and will get a new lease of life. Even during the cold war, loads of Ladas were shipped back to Russia.

That doesn't mean they're destined to come back to the UK.

Johno100

Muscle750 wrote: »

Plus of course not forgetting the £45 million of unpaid fines from foreign drivers as figures released by the government a few weeks back and basically saying most were untraceable and the comment about cars being shipped back to Poland is very true I know of one salvage company that takes all their collections straight to the docks at Bristol to be loaded onto a boat

Well perhaps if Cameron wasn't so scared of the anti EU loons in his party he would sign up to share vehicle and keeper data with other EU countries. So if caught by ANPR cameras, fines could be pursued. Downside would be Brits speeding to catch their ferry home from France could also be pursued for speeding fines by the French.

PenguinJim

brat wrote: »

No, not at all. If the object of the game is to try to get the fastest time, there is always going to be a compromise when the optimum speed becomes a personal assessment within the limit.

But you're using your own personal assessments when you say 19mph is a better speed than 25mph. I have to use my personal assessments when judging how much of a hazard the rain is, or the visibility around parked cars is. Personal assessments make up a significant amount of the driving technique. Complaining that someone has to use personal assessments while driving is such an odd thing to say considering you've given the impression that you've driven a car.

And to say that too much obsessing over your current speed can cause accidents..? Well, duh! Obsessing over your mirrors makes you prone to not paying full attention to what's in front of you. Obsessing over your make-up in your vanity mirror makes you less likely to spot hazards. What you're describing is "not paying attention", and instead of writing assumption-filled paragraphs on the subject, you could simply have used the one sentence: "Just be careful not to obsess over your speedo at the expense of your attention to the road! "

I've driven hundreds of thousands of kilometres across four countries (five if you include Wales), in conditions as diverse as navigating the streets of Paris during rush hour and pushing through rainforest rivers. Perhaps my fifteen years of driving with no accidents, no bumps or scrapes, no insurance claims and no speeding tickets are completely coincidental, but maybe my following the rules of the road is somehow related?

brat

PenguinJim wrote: »

But you're using your own personal assessments when you say 19mph is a better speed than 25mph. I have to use my personal assessments when judging how much of a hazard the rain is, or the visibility around parked cars is. Personal assessments make up a significant amount of the driving technique. Complaining that someone has to use personal assessments while driving is such an odd thing to say considering you've given the impression that you've driven a car.

You misunderstand me. I want driving to be subject to the personal assessment of compliant competent motorists. I don't want that assessment to be burdened by non driving parameters such as getting from A to B in the fastest possible time.

And to say that too much obsessing over your current speed can cause accidents..? Well, duh! Obsessing over your mirrors makes you prone to not paying full attention to what's in front of you. Obsessing over your make-up in your vanity mirror makes you less likely to spot hazards. What you're describing is "not paying attention", and instead of writing assumption-filled paragraphs on the subject, you could simply have used the one sentence: "Just be careful not to obsess over your speedo at the expense of your attention to the road! "

I don't believe I said what you've attributed to me, but let's run with that idea in terms of diverted attention on the approach to a speed cam.

If you're constantly checking your speedo, then that prevents you from having a good clear view of the road ahead. It's believed that on the approach to a speed camera, the average motorist takes their eye off the road for a total of seven seconds to check their speedo, even when driving within the limit.
So, you're right, it does have to be considered a risk, in the same way as checking make up or changing channels on the radio. However, when you check your make up, you would do so in an area you've assessed to be low risk. A speed camera causes drivers to divert attention from the road in an instinctive way in an area that perhaps hasn't been fully assessed for risk, so in that respect it could be considered a significantly greater risk.

For precisely that reason I wouldn't wish to have speed cameras outside schools.

PenguinJim

brat wrote: »

You misunderstand me. I want driving to be subject to the personal assessment of compliant competent motorists. I don't want that assessment to be burdened by non driving parameters such as getting from A to B in the fastest possible time.

I don't think you're quite following what a few people here are saying. It's not all about speeds or speed limits. You seem fixated on the idea that the only way a journey can be completed in less time is to increase the car's speed, rather than the efficiency.

The best thing I've done recently to improve my journey's speed? I changed my office hours to 10am->18:30pm to avoid rush hour. See? No need to increase the car's actual speed at all. You can drop your obsession with the idea that you cannot decrease your journey time without increasing your speed above a safe level. Certainly any idiot could do that, and a couple here have admitted to it, but applying a little intelligence to the problem results in a far more satisfactory result IMO.

brat wrote: »

I don't believe I said what you've attributed to me, but let's run with that idea in terms of diverted attention on the approach to a speed cam.

brat wrote: »

I do have some concerns about people who take speed limit adherence to be a game, because I think that would demand too much attention to the numerical rather than the appropriate speed, and too much attention would be paid to the speedo rather than the actual or potential hazards on the road.

(I did assume that not enough attention paid to "actual or potential hazards" would result in accidents, but if it didn't, what would be your concern in the first place?)

I ignore speed cameras.

Why do I have that luxury when others (apparently) don't?

I own my speed.

I understand you wanting to blame the speed camera, but if it's OK with you, I'll continue to blame the criminal behind the wheel.

brat

PenguinJim wrote: »

I don't think you're quite following what a few people here are saying. It's not all about speeds or speed limits. You seem fixated on the idea that the only way a journey can be completed in less time is to increase the car's speed, rather than the efficiency.

The best thing I've done recently to improve my journey's speed? I changed my office hours to 10am->18:30pm to avoid rush hour. See? No need to increase the car's actual speed at all.

The only way a car can get from A to B more quickly (using the same road) is by increasing its average speed. That's not negotiable.
Of course risk changes if you travel at a different time of day. If that is your game plan, then I'll go with that. But if you still feel a compulsion to continually reduce your journey times during the drive, you are putting an undesirable parameter into the mix.

PenguinJim wrote: »

I ignore speed cameras.

Why do I have that luxury when others (apparently) don't?

I own my speed.

I understand you wanting to blame the speed camera, but if it's OK with you, I'll continue to blame the criminal behind the wheel.

Unlike you, I'm not talking about the perfect driver, I'm talking about the average driver who has a genuine interest in driving safely, also a desire not to be caught out by a speed camera.
Such a perfect driver can be identified by other drivers as the one who slows down (in their opinion) too early to sub 30 prior to the 30 roundels on entry to town, and sticks rigidly to 30 on the exit from town. Yes, their driving is potentially more legal, but to the average motorist, they are a pita.

The average driver checks their speedo three or four times on the approach to a speed camera, despite often being within the posted speed limit. The double change of focus and direction of view each time they check their speedo accounts for an average total of seven seconds loss of view of the road ahead. I'll dig out the research when I can, but it seems a reasonable assessment.
For the average driver, the instinctive nature of this response means that they may not have properly assessed hazards before taking their eyes off the road. That is not a good way to encourage people to drive, but the average driver simply can't help themselves.

Joe_Horner

PenguinJim wrote: »

I've driven hundreds of thousands of kilometres across four countries (five if you include Wales), in conditions as diverse as navigating the streets of Paris during rush hour and pushing through rainforest rivers. Perhaps my fifteen years of driving with no accidents, no bumps or scrapes, no insurance claims and no speeding tickets are completely coincidental, but maybe my following the rules of the road is somehow related?

The problem with that argument is that it likely is coincidental seeing as I've driven for 25+ years, hundreds of thousands of miles (which trump kilometers 1.6:1) over 4 countries (I live in Wales).

My 25+ years of no accidents, bumps, scrapes or insurance claims are despite my general disregard for speed limits in favour of judging the conditions. My 1 speeding ticket and 1 speed awareness course over that time are for the same reason. Neither were a safety issue, both were for accelerating early for a limit change on straight, clear, roads with no turnings, buildings or hedges on clear, dry, days. Both for 35 in a 30.

In fact the policeman who stopped me for the first one was quite cheerful about the fact he "probably wouldn't have bothered" if I wasn't driving a Yugo at the time. We had a bit of a laugh about it reaching the limit in the first place and all was good.

I have no idea whether the fact I was in a 1972 Daf played a part in the camera van catching me on the second, but it raised a smile or two at the speed awareness course.

Neither of these incidents left me upset or feeling aggrieved because I took a calculated gamble breaking the rules (although was NOT gambling with safety) and, on those two occasions, I lost. But all the other times I've taken the same gamble I've come out ahead so it's all good in the end

PenguinJim

I absolutely agree that I don't think the statistics of one person can make a strong argument either way, but do you have something more than just the statistics of one other person to say that it's "likely" to be coincidental? (Particularly as your statistics actually seem to make the point that it's not coincidental! :rotfl:)

brat wrote: »

The only way a car can get from A to B more quickly (using the same road) is by increasing its average speed. That's not negotiable.

Well, I do think that good route-planning is essential in getting from A to B in the most expedient fashion, so I guess we'll agree to disagree there. But all of your emphasis is (again) on speed. How about getting from A to B more quickly by avoiding slowdowns?

You could simply avoid rush hour. Or make better use of the lanes for overtaking and for pulling away at junctions. Or use your awareness of upcoming hazards to be in the correct lane at the correct time to avoid being caught between vehicles and having to brake. Or make better use of gears to maintain your speed going up hills. Or pay full care and attention to hazards to avoid accidents that will (of course!) slow you down. Or be aware of many vehicles ahead of you to be able to adapt to upcoming changes in traffic patterns and not be caught out by them.

I'm fairly sure that this should be obvious to a licensed driver. I know you've described yourself as a "traffic cop", but you haven't mentioned your own driving at any point. Do you have a license? Have you driven a car on the roads? In particular, not knowing that route-planning is important for efficient journeys really does raise a red flag here. Surely even an unlicensed traffic cop who has never driven a car in their life would be aware of that one!