We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Speeding offence

145791023

Comments

  • PenguinJim
    PenguinJim Posts: 844 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    "Manufacturing a perfect speedometer and display with zero% error would cost an inordinate amount. The ACPO recognise this and apply 10% plus 2mph. This is not law, these are guidelines."

    Even if you were correct, it certainly doesn't negate the point in any way whatsoever. Courts and police officers are in a position where they can apply discretion, tolerance and leniency where it is appropriate, but it's not for us to pick and choose which laws we obey and which ones we don't.

    If you don't like the laws, campaign to change them.
    Q: What kind of discussions aren't allowed?
    A: It goes without saying that this site's about MoneySaving.

    Q: Why are some Board Guides sometimes unpleasant?
    A: We very much hope this isn't the case. But if it is, please make sure you report this, as you would any other forum user's posts, to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com.
  • brat
    brat Posts: 2,533 Forumite
    PenguinJim wrote: »
    I feel my blood pressure rise when I see armchair pundits (who speed) complaining that police shouldn't be wasting their time catching people speeding when there are still murderers, rapists and foreigns out there to be caught.

    Of course the police shouldn't be wasting their time catching people speeding! DON'T SPEED AND THEY WON'T HAVE TO!!! :mad:

    Personally, I love driving, and I love the rules. I love the challenge of getting from A to B in the fastest time possible within those rules. Breaking the speed limit, driving through a red light, making an illegal manoeuvre are the equivalent of entering a cheat code on a video game - they just show that you're not very good, that you lack the skills, and need to cheat to "win".

    I also don't understand people who slow down for speed cameras. Ashamed of your speed? Grow a pair and own your speed. Take it to court and defend it if you believe your speed was right. If you believe your speed was wrong, then why were you doing that speed in the first place?


    I don't understand why adults would need this point explaining to them! A line has to be drawn somewhere. Where the line is drawn, you can't complain that you were "just" over/under it. That would move the line. And then people who were "just" over/under where you were can complain the same thing. And that would move the line. And so on.

    No!

    The line must be drawn HERE! This far, NO FURTHER!

    There are rules to be obeyed, and speeding is one of them. The offence of speeding historically required a trained officer to form the opinion that a driver is speeding before they would measure the speed by whatever corroborative method. The purpose of this was a) to have two aspects of evidence to strengthen the case, and b) to ensure that marginal limit breaches were not prosecuted.
    Technological advances has allowed these marginal breaches to be exploited through improved accuracy and precision, but does it necessarily follow that more prosecutions equals more safety? The truth is a little more complex.

    For the last 10 of my 19 years so far as a traffic cop, I have been involved in forensic collision investigation, with a professional and hobby interest in the causes and causers of fatal road traffic collisions.
    The most interesting aspect of any such research for me is to recognise that the causers of fatal and very serious injury RTCs are generally from a very limited group of road users. Often they have seriously, often intentionally, compromised the normal, expected attitude to risk. So the 'boy racer' who crashes at high speed, or the weekend motor cyclist who rides beyond his capabilities are fully aware that their speed is inappropriate for the road, but they don't care. They have a different agenda. Because they are so aware that they are driving illegally at inappropriate speeds, they will be fully aware of the locations of speed cameras and van sitings and avoid them when they are driving or riding dangerously.
    Drink or drug drivers are significantly involved in fatal collisions because, while their speed may not be excessive, it is often massively inappropriate for their impaired driving ability.

    In our county, the above attitudes or impairments feature in much less than 1% of the total annual road mileage, yet they are responsible for more than 50% of fatal collisions.
    If we are serious about road safety, we need to have the ability to tackle these groups appropriately.

    By way of comparison, the driver most often caught by the speed camera is the 35 to 55 year old driver which, paradoxically, is the age range of drivers least crash involved per mile.
    It's not difficult to understand why this is, when you consider that the majority of camera sitings were in places where the 85th percentile speed was above the ACPO prosecution threshold, ie in locations where it is generally safe to exceed the speed limit. Most experienced drivers who consider themselves safe and compliant tend to drive to conditions more than speed limits (although aware of the limit and respect its purpose), which means that occasionally, when conditions permit, their speed will creep up, completely safely, but almost subconsciously, to a speed above the posted limit. Their safe driving technique therefore has the potential to be punished by the speed camera.

    So, while I fully accept that it is an offence to exceed the posted speed limits, there is little doubt that many of the breaches are instinctive safe speed variations as a consequence of a change in hazard definition. I wouldn't like UK drivers to lose the ability to correctly adjust their speed to the road condition, but the overemphasis of the speed limit as the primary safety message, combined with over-enforcement of marginal speed limit breaches may well be messing with our safe driving attitudes.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
  • brat
    brat Posts: 2,533 Forumite
    Richard53 wrote: »
    As for the apparent reduction in accidents, I refer again to 'regression to the mean'. Basically, if you put a speed camera on a stretch of road that has recently had a spike of accidents, the figures for the following year or two will almost inevitably show a reduction. That reduction, however, is simply the random nature of accidents reasserting itself, and not the result of the camera..

    Despite RTTM being explained and accepted as the primary reason why the speed cameras life saving credentials were so massively overstated, many of the organisations that need evidence to support their 'speed kills' message still use the flawed analysis...

    http://www.brake.org.uk/info-resources/info-research/road-safety-factsheets/15-facts-a-resources/facts/464-speed-cameras
    Brake wrote:
    A four year national evaluation of speed camera effectiveness commissioned by the UK's Department for Transport in 2005
    This comprehensive evaluation found a 70% reduction in speeding at fixed sites, a fall of 6% in average speeds and a 42% reduction in people killed and seriously injured.
    http://www.roadpeace.org/rdr/tackling_bad_driving/safety_cameras/
    Roadpeace wrote:
    After allowing for the long-term trend, there was a 33% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites where cameras were introduced. Overall, this meant that 40% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (40% fewer).
    http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/driving/speed/inappropriate-speed.aspx
    ROSPA wrote:
    The number of people killed or seriously injured fell by 42% at camera sites. This means there were 1,745 fewer people being killed or seriously injured at the camera sites per year – including 100 fewer deaths per year.
    The number of people killed and seriously injured fell by 50% at fixed sites and by 35% at mobile sites.
    There was a 32% reduction in the number of children killed and seriously injured at camera sites.
    The number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured fell by 29% at camera sites.

    Some organisations more insidiously make mention that they have taken no account of the effect of RTTM, yet still tout the massively overstated safety figures as fact! Shocking really.
    http://www.nottspeed.com/camera_facts_speed_reduction.php
    Notts_SCP wrote:
    after allowing for the long-term trend, but without allowing for selection effects (such as regression-to-mean) there was a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites after cameras were introduced. Overall 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (32% fewer). There were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per annum in 2004.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
  • angel00079
    angel00079 Posts: 639 Forumite
    Well given the gap between the offences I think it is fair to say that OP's father has probably learned his lesson. With all the measures to catch offences I am sure if he had not seriously modified his driving behaviour he would have been caught before now.

    I have no idea of the conditions of the road the offence took place on so I might be barking up the wrong tree. May be the driver thought the 30 was a 60. Speed awareness course points things out like a street light on a wooden telegraph pole may indicate a 30. This may be obvious to some but not others.
  • Car_54
    Car_54 Posts: 8,939 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    angel00079 wrote: »
    Well given the gap between the offences I think it is fair to say that OP's father has probably learned his lesson.

    Maybe, but the evidence seems to show that he's forgotten it again!
  • custardy
    custardy Posts: 38,365 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    angel00079 wrote: »
    Well given the gap between the offences I think it is fair to say that OP's father has probably learned his lesson. With all the measures to catch offences I am sure if he had not seriously modified his driving behaviour he would have been caught before now.

    I have no idea of the conditions of the road the offence took place on so I might be barking up the wrong tree. May be the driver thought the 30 was a 60. Speed awareness course points things out like a street light on a wooden telegraph pole may indicate a 30. This may be obvious to some but not others.

    Sounds like a great excuse.....................
    If only there was some sort of reference book and test for this stuff.
  • sh0597
    sh0597 Posts: 578 Forumite
    Richard53 wrote: »
    As has often been said, a camera can't spot a drunk driver, an unroadworthy vehicle, a dangerous overtake, a driver texting or reading a newspaper, etc etc.


    But it can spot you doing 44 in a 40 limit, on an empty road in broad daylight, and make you face the consequences.


    Speed and red-light cameras have their place (dangerous junctions, schools, main roads through villages), but all too often the place they are in is not helpful to anyone but the local authority finance director.



    In theory though a speed camera is freeing up a police officers time to go and target those other offences. I don't really have any sympathy for people caught speeding.
  • Richard53
    Richard53 Posts: 3,173 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    sh0597 wrote: »
    In theory though a speed camera is freeing up a police officers time to go and target those other offences.



    Which would be fine, except that along with the rise in the use of speed cameras has been a reduction of the number of officers on traffic patrol. So those other offences are still not being targeted.


    An observation: for the last 25 years I have been making a fairly regular trip cross-country to visit family, a journey of about 300 miles one-way, 75% motorway. In the early 1990s, I would probably see three or four police cars on traffic duty every trip. These days ... well, I can't remember the last one I saw.


    If they are now all behind desks processing automated speeding fines, then that is a scandalous waste of resources.
    If someone is nice to you but rude to the waiter, they are not a nice person.
  • Richard53
    Richard53 Posts: 3,173 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    brat wrote: »
    For the last 10 of my 19 years so far as a traffic cop, I have been involved in forensic collision investigation, with a professional and hobby interest in the causes and causers of fatal road traffic collisions.


    ---snip---

    So, while I fully accept that it is an offence to exceed the posted speed limits, there is little doubt that many of the breaches are instinctive safe speed variations as a consequence of a change in hazard definition. I wouldn't like UK drivers to lose the ability to correctly adjust their speed to the road condition, but the overemphasis of the speed limit as the primary safety message, combined with over-enforcement of marginal speed limit breaches may well be messing with our safe driving attitudes.



    That's the best explanation of the situation I have read. Well said.
    If someone is nice to you but rude to the waiter, they are not a nice person.
  • Car_54
    Car_54 Posts: 8,939 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Richard53 wrote: »
    Which would be fine, except that along with the rise in the use of speed cameras has been a reduction of the number of officers on traffic patrol. So those other offences are still not being targeted.


    An observation: for the last 25 years I have been making a fairly regular trip cross-country to visit family, a journey of about 300 miles one-way, 75% motorway. In the early 1990s, I would probably see three or four police cars on traffic duty every trip. These days ... well, I can't remember the last one I saw.


    If they are now all behind desks processing automated speeding fines, then that is a scandalous waste of resources.

    How many unmarked police cars do you see?

    I see them often, but only when they're in the act of nicking someone.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.