Speeding offence

Joe_Horner

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.

PenguinJim wrote: »

[...]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!

All of which, as Brat correctly pointed out, increase average speed. Which should be obvious to any skilled driver.

PenguinJim

Actually, given that it was a completely different "point" to the one they'd been trying to make in the last couple of pages, I assumed their English was in error again, and I didn't want to embarrass them by pointing it out again.

In other words, I gave them the benefit of the doubt that their argument was consistent, based on my experience of their English, and my rejection of the idea that someone would suddenly switch their argument to something completely different halfway through.

Sorry, brat. It wasn't me pointing out your mistake this time!

Edit: although now that I consider it, brat may have been saying that I was completely correct that there are ways to increase average speed without speeding or driving without due care and attention, and simply phrased it in an amazingly confrontational and argumentative way!

matttye

PenguinJim wrote: »

Actually, given that it was a completely different "point" to the one they'd been trying to make in the last couple of pages, I assumed their English was in error again, and I didn't want to embarrass them by pointing it out again.

In other words, I gave them the benefit of the doubt that their argument was consistent, based on my experience of their English, and my rejection of the idea that someone would suddenly switch their argument to something completely different halfway through.

Sorry, brat. It wasn't me pointing out your mistake this time!

Edit: although now that I consider it, brat may have been saying that I was completely correct that there are ways to increase average speed without speeding or driving without due care and attention, and simply phrased it in an amazingly confrontational and argumentative way!

Brat said that the only way to get from A to B quicker (using the same route) is to increase the vehicle's average speed.

You then responded saying that brat is putting emphasis on speed, and went on to list a bunch of methods to increase the average speed of the vehicle. It seems that you both concur.

This latest post of yours makes little sense; what mistake did he make? It seems that the entire time brat has been saying that if you put too much focus on getting to where you want as fast as possible (within the so called 'rules') then safety may take a back seat.

My main concern with each journey is getting to where I want to go without hurting myself or others.

Joe_Horner

matttye wrote: »

My main concern with each journey is getting to where I want to go without hurting myself or others.

So you're the other one. I knew I couldn't be alone, but was starting to wonder after hanging round here so long

PenguinJim

Errr... Joe Horner, you said you have a "general disregard for speed limits in favour of judging the conditions" - doesn't this mean that from your lone viewpoint inside a car, you assume you know better than the roadplanners who have considered the road's safety from many angles? Apparently your excellent road awareness didn't extend to spotting the police. Claiming that it's safer for you to do 35 than 30 in a 30 zone doesn't scream safety as a main concern to me. Just impatience and arrogance.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to get on your case about this, but people like you and the OP's father are the cause of the problem. We would all be able to go faster if it wasn't for poor drivers like you, just like our consumer products would be cheaper if we didn't have to cover the costs of anti-theft devices and security to stop your people from stealing them, and our taxes would be lower if people like you didn't avoid paying them.

matttye wrote: »

This latest post of yours makes little sense; what mistake did he make?

I'm quite sure they (he?) didn't literally mean to say that increasing your average speed will get you somewhere more quickly, as it was a complete non-point. They might as well have said "a kilometre is a thousand metres" for all of the insight and relevance it would have added. Unless they were meaning "Yes, PenguinJim, as you have been saying, you can increase your average speed through various established and safe driving techniques to bring you to your destination sooner" - but that certainly wasn't clear!

But remove the word "average" (which isn't a leap when you consider their English problems in their other posts) and their post suddenly makes exactly the same point as their last few posts: the only way to get somewhere more quickly is to drive faster (!), and this always means more dangerously (!).

I apologise if I'm wrong, and brat really was making a completely flat, irrelevant statement, but I really don't think anyone would say anything so worthless. Even someone who thinks it takes seven seconds to check a speedometer (I'm being patient and waiting for brat's link to the research, but I'm surprised no-one else has questioned that already!).

matttye

PenguinJim wrote: »

Errr... Joe Horner, you said you have a "general disregard for speed limits in favour of judging the conditions" - doesn't this mean that from your lone viewpoint inside a car, you assume you know better than the roadplanners who have considered the road's safety from many angles? Apparently your excellent road awareness didn't extend to spotting the police. Claiming that it's safer for you to do 35 than 30 in a 30 zone doesn't scream safety as a main concern to me. Just impatience and arrogance.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to get on your case about this, but people like you and the OP's father are the cause of the problem. We would all be able to go faster if it wasn't for poor drivers like you, just like our consumer products would be cheaper if we didn't have to cover the costs of anti-theft devices and security to stop your people from stealing them, and our taxes would be lower if people like you didn't avoid paying them.

I'm quite sure they (he?) didn't literally mean to say that increasing your average speed will get you somewhere more quickly, as it was a complete non-point. They might as well have said "a kilometre is a thousand metres" for all of the insight and relevance it would have added. Unless they were meaning "Yes, PenguinJim, as you have been saying, you can increase your average speed through various established and safe driving techniques to bring you to your destination sooner" - but that certainly wasn't clear!

But remove the word "average" (which isn't a leap when you consider their English problems in their other posts) and their post suddenly makes exactly the same point as their last few posts: the only way to get somewhere more quickly is to drive faster (!), and this always means more dangerously (!).

I apologise if I'm wrong, and brat really was making a completely flat, irrelevant statement, but I really don't think anyone would say anything so worthless. Even someone who thinks it takes seven seconds to check a speedometer (I'm being patient and waiting for brat's link to the research, but I'm surprised no-one else has questioned that already!).

Seven seconds to check a speedometer on 3 to 4 occasions on approach to a speed camera. Does that sound that unrealistic to you? It doesn't mean 7 seconds on a single occasion.

Unless I've got cruise control on I check my speedo several times on approach to a speed camera.

PenguinJim

Yes, that sounds that a huge overestimate to me. 4 checks (what!?!) at between half and one second per check does not come close to 7 seconds.

The other flaw is that brat is blaming this on the speed camera rather than the idiot who is so distracted by the speed camera that they take their eyes off the road for (in brat's opinion) seven seconds (in theory - we're still waiting for the link to this hypothetical scenario). If people like Joe Horner did not speed and kill or seriously injure 25,000 people in the UK every year, the UK would not need speed cameras.

Edit: I'm sorry that I keep talking about fixing the cause rather than complaining about one of the solutions. As we're going in circles, I won't post again until someone links to some compelling figures showing that criminal speeding is sometimes safer than keeping your speed under the limit (beyond extenuating circumstances like trying to escape from a car of gang members discharging firearms at your vehicle, or trying to outrun an atomic explosion or zombie outbreak).

As that makes this almost certainly my last post on this topic, I'll try one last time to try to convince Joe Horner not to smear a toddler's head over the pavement in order to save a couple of minutes. Here's what you could have learned from a Speed Awareness course:

Morinaka wrote:

I got caught doing 36 in a 30 but it could have easily been more. The course gave me a kick up the !!!! and time to ponder why was i a habitual speeder.
I came to the conclusion that speed is fun but it has no real business on a public road. It's a public road not a racetrack and i didn't need to speed (not that it is a justification).
I challenged myself to drive at the limit all the time for a month afterwards. I found driving less stressful and enjoyable just driving at the limit, i had more time to observe and react to other drivers, more control and a smoother ride. Completely changed my driving style, saved fuel and still got where i needed to go in time, wouldn't go back to speeding now.

Those courses aren't wasted on everyone, it seems. Let's have some quotes about people who speed:

Lord_Whitty wrote:

"Most people refuse to believe that breaking a speed limit is unsafe."

the_BBC wrote:

Earl Attlee said that many drivers had "inflated" opinions of their driving skills and the capabilities of their vehicles.

And finally, everyday knowledge that people of my generation grew up with, but older generations may not have been aware of:

The facts

Speed is one of the main factors in fatal road accidents
In 2013, 3,064 people were killed or seriously injured in crashes where speed was a factor
The risk of death is approximately four times higher when a pedestrian is hit at 40mph than at 30mph
Fatal accidents are four times as likely on rural “A” roads as urban “A” roads

The law

You must not drive faster than the speed limit for the type of road and your type of vehicle. The speed limit is the absolute maximum and it doesn’t mean it's safe to drive at this speed in all conditions.

I have my fingers crossed that this will save a life, but I'm also very sad that it even needs pointing out in the first place.

matttye

PenguinJim wrote: »

Yes, that sounds that a huge overestimate to me. 4 checks (what!?!) at between half and one second per check does not come close to 7 seconds.

The other flaw is that brat is blaming this on the speed camera rather than the idiot who is so distracted by the speed camera that they take their eyes off the road for (in brat's opinion) seven seconds (in theory - we're still waiting for the link to this hypothetical scenario). If people like Joe Horner did not speed and kill or seriously injure 25,000 people in the UK every year, the UK would not need speed cameras.

Edit: I'm sorry that I keep talking about fixing the cause rather than complaining about one of the solutions. As we're going in circles, I won't post again until someone links to some compelling figures showing that criminal speeding is sometimes safer than keeping your speed under the limit (beyond extenuating circumstances like trying to escape from a car of gang members discharging firearms at your vehicle, or trying to outrun an atomic explosion or zombie outbreak).

As that makes this almost certainly my last post on this topic, I'll try one last time to try to convince Joe Horner not to smear a toddler's head over the pavement in order to save a couple of minutes. Here's what you could have learned from a Speed Awareness course:

Those courses aren't wasted on everyone, it seems. Let's have some quotes about people who speed:




And finally, everyday knowledge that people of my generation grew up with, but older generations may not have been aware of:

I have my fingers crossed that this will save a life, but I'm also very sad that it even needs pointing out in the first place.

Do you still think it's a huge overestimate if someone is slightly above the limit but makes a minor correction to their speed, keep their eyes on the speedo to make sure they drop to an appropriate speed?

AdrianC

PenguinJim wrote: »

If people like Joe Horner did not speed and kill or seriously injure 25,000 people in the UK every year, the UK would not need speed cameras.

Are you suggesting there's a strong correlation between speed in excess of the limit, and deaths/serious injuries? Because, if you are, you are wrong. That simple.

There were DoT/Police figures released a few years ago - less than 10% of KSI collisions involved speed in excess of the limit. The vast majority were simple inattention. Excess speed for the conditions (but within the limit) was a cause in more than speed above the limit.

Edit: I'm sorry that I keep talking about fixing the cause rather than complaining about one of the solutions.

You're actually doing a great job of showing exactly WHY the focus being on the wrong cause is dangerous.

As that makes this almost certainly my last post on this topic, I'll try one last time to try to convince Joe Horner not to smear a toddler's head over the pavement in order to save a couple of minutes.

Because, of course, it's somehow different if you smear a toddler's head over the pavement whilst below the speed limit.

Although if Joe (or whoever) is driving on the pavement in the first place, I'm not convinced their speed is the biggest problem. And if they aren't, why is the toddler in the road?

Iceweasel

The reason that the UK need speed/safety cameras is very simple.

The government need the cash they produce.

Nothing else is relevant.