Any police officers on here? (Speeding question)

[secretagentmole]

YEY here we go again.... Bla bla why dont they do something more useful bla bla.....

 

Speeding is a crime and it kills therefore it needs dealing with.

 

Pathetic absolutely pathetic.

Speeding does not kill, I have been in a speeding vehicle many times and lived. Your attitude is pathetic.

Poor driving kills, people bumbling all over the road, following berk nav systems which are years out of date, not reading road markings or signs and paying little or no attention to what is going on around them, then you get road deaths, rather than a driver paying attention and doing 5 mph over the limit.

 

Kes, sometimes fixed cameras are placed where no accidents have occurred (the accident has to be within a 1 mile radius I believe, so someone getting run over in a residential neighbourhood by Mr Brown reversing out of his drive, can mean a speed camera goes up on a dual carriageway three quarters of a mile away on safety grounds!

 

For your information, yes I do have a license, I do not have or ever have had any speeding tickets.

Edited September 5, 2013 by secretagentmole

[chady]

These speeding threads all ways course arguments!!!! Just saying...

[TIGHTCHOKE]

These speeding threads all ways course arguments!!!! Just saying...

 

 

 

No they don't!

[Sha Bu Le]

Why don't they do something more usefull with their time. Motorists easy targets again.

 

Been caught twice by speed cam vans did the courses and escaped the points, was told during these courses that fixed radars and vans are only used on roads where a given number of deaths/serious accidents have occurred in a certain time period.

 

Whilst I echo your comment about motorist bashing it seems there is a real need for the speed cam vans and if they slow someone down and prevent an accident then so much the better.

 

Incidentally anyone can find out where and when the vans will be deployed by checking the "Safespeedforlife" website so its hardly an ambush situation.

 

Edit = P.S. Not a plod

Edited September 5, 2013 by Sha Bu Le

[castletyne]

What should be done away with is points for minor offences like the sp30

 

you can loose everything for a petty thing like accumulating 12 points over 4 years

[Elby]

The speed vans can, depending on how they are set up, catch you in any direction and at a range of up to 1000 yards. If you have heard nothing within 14 days of the day after the "offence" (inc. w/ends) then you are a free man-but its pure chance-I got caught doing 34 just inside a 30mph zone on a clear road that goes from 60 to 30 and then, just a week later, I went passed a van somewhere near 3 times the speed limit and never heard a word. Good luck

3 times the limit?

90 in a 30?

150 in a 50?

180 in a 60?

210 in a 70?

[Elby]

Speed does kill.

Facts are the faster you go the further it takes to stop in an emergency.

Driving skill in that case has nothing to do with it.

[castletyne]

Speed does kill.

Facts are the faster you go the further it takes to stop in an emergency.

Driving skill in that case has nothing to do with it.

That would have to depend on the speed doing 34 in a 30 or 67 in a 60 would make little difference

 

I would bet that the majority of drivers caught speeding are just slightly over the limit

[Rushjob]

Speed does kill.

Facts are the faster you go the further it takes to stop in an emergency.

Driving skill in that case has nothing to do with it.

Speed on it's own does not kill, or I'd have been dead years ago.

 

Inappropriate speed CAN kill, as can inattention, distraction, aggression, defective vehicles, etc, etc.

 

Having spent 7 years as a Traffic Sgt supervising and investigating serious & fatal crashes I have a fairly good insight into the subject.

 

The fact remains that poor driving standards in general are more difficult to quantify, evidence and prosecute so do not give the Government and other vested interests good soundbites.

 

Speed is easy to measure and therefore deal with, to a large degree by automation and it makes a snappy slogan.

 

Look at the crash in the fog on the Sheppey Crossing this morning - I bet that not many of those vans & cars were speeding but they still managed to crash into each other through not being careful.

 

As for the comment about skill, if everyone actually used skill when driving, at whatever speed, I can categorically guarantee that crashes would reduce massively.

[byjovecarruthers]

I thought " speed kills " was the slogan used to outline the fact that a pedestrians survivability when hit by a motor vehicle increased in proportion to speed decrease. I don't think anybody can argue that a kid hit by a car doing 20 mph is more likely to survive than when hit by a car traveling at 40 mph.

[fella]

I thought " speed kills " was the slogan used to outline the fact that a pedestrians survivability when hit by a motor vehicle increased in proportion to speed decrease. I don't think anybody can argue that a kid hit by a car doing 20 mph is more likely to survive than when hit by a car traveling at 40 mph.byjovecarruthers, on 05 Sept 2013 - 1:38 PM, said:

 

The statistics are even more stark than that - you are twice as likely to kill a pedestrian at 40 mph than you are at 30 mph. That ten mph is the difference between life and death, and likely only seconds off your journey time.

 

A bit sobering that.

[Elby]

I thought " speed kills " was the slogan used to outline the fact that a pedestrians survivability when hit by a motor vehicle increased in proportion to speed decrease. I don't think anybody can argue that a kid hit by a car doing 20 mph is more likely to survive than when hit by a car traveling at 40 mph.

+1

[Elby]

Speed on it's own does not kill, or I'd have been dead years ago.

 

Inappropriate speed CAN kill, as can inattention, distraction, aggression, defective vehicles, etc, etc.

 

Having spent 7 years as a Traffic Sgt supervising and investigating serious & fatal crashes I have a fairly good insight into the subject.

 

The fact remains that poor driving standards in general are more difficult to quantify, evidence and prosecute so do not give the Government and other vested interests good soundbites.

 

Speed is easy to measure and therefore deal with, to a large degree by automation and it makes a snappy slogan.

 

Look at the crash in the fog on the Sheppey Crossing this morning - I bet that not many of those vans & cars were speeding but they still managed to crash into each other through not being careful.

 

As for the comment about skill, if everyone actually used skill when driving, at whatever speed, I can categorically guarantee that crashes would reduce massively.

Rediculous statement especially considering your job.

Skill has nothing to do with it.

Put Lewis Hamilton in a car doing 40 and then the same car doind 30 and make him do an emergency stop.

Do the cars travel the same distance or not?

[Rushjob]

Driving well is a skill - to say otherwise defies logic.

 

The definition of skill includes " the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well; competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity:

a craft, trade, or job requiring manual dexterity or special training in which a person has competence and experience:

 

I think that if all drivers could match that to their driving the roads would be far safer.

 

Lewis is doing 30 on the M1 or M6, legal, yes, but I'd say he's more likely to cause a problem for other road users than if he's doing 80.

 

I'm retired by the way, and I can spell ridiculous.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Rushjob

[Elby]

So retired now and joined the spelling police.

So you think that all drivers should be skill tested and then allowed to do the speeds that relate to their skill?

[Rushjob]

So retired now and joined the spelling police.

So you think that all drivers should be skill tested and then allowed to do the speeds that relate to their skill?

 

 

Nope, that would be daft

 

One set of limits, but sensibly applied and not artificially lowered by authorities being taken in by emotive spin from lobbying organisations with their own agendas, whilst totally ignoring advice from their own experts who they pay to advise them.

[Guest cookoff013]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23967547

[Elby]

 

 

Nope, that would be daft

 

One set of limits, but sensibly applied and not artificially lowered by authorities being taken in by emotive spin from lobbying organisations with their own agendas, whilst totally ignoring advice from their own experts who they pay to advise them.

Please elaborate.

What should the speed limits be set at?

[krugerandsmith]

 

 

The statistics are even more stark than that - you are twice as likely to kill a pedestrian at 40 mph than you are at 30 mph. That ten mph is the difference between life and death, and likely only seconds off your journey time.

 

A bit sobering that.

 

 

Not if it's a 20 ton truck that's doing 30mph

[castletyne]

Rediculous statement especially considering your job.

Skill has nothing to do with it.

Put Lewis Hamilton in a car doing 40 and then the same car doind 30 and make him do an emergency stop.

Do the cars travel the same distance or not?

My money would be on Hamilton his reaction time would be quicker and good driver is reading the road ahead

[Kes]

Kes, sometimes fixed cameras are placed where no accidents have occurred (the accident has to be within a 1 mile radius I believe, so someone getting run over in a residential neighbourhood by Mr Brown reversing out of his drive, can mean a speed camera goes up on a dual carriageway three quarters of a mile away on safety grounds

 

I used to run a Safety Camera Partnership and the distance is 300metres (150 either side of propsed site) and casualties must be on the same carriageway or immediately adjacent (dual carriageway)..

 

BTW speed does kill but its an acceptable shorthand for " many people cant drive safely at the speed they are regularly travelling" or " inappropriate speed isnt recognised by the drivers who do it most".

 

As I said before its proportionality and motorists knowing what you are doing and why, (what evidence supports) what you are doing.

 

The single most difficult issue to get over was the police dont always know how to fill in the stats form and if coded for location incorrectly, casualty clusters dont appear and cant be treated as single or 'mass' accident sites.

 

Specialist analysis can show you the most likely factors affecting what is a random - multifactor event and comparisons with other incidences of crashes allows you to know from the precise data whether 'too many' (above average) casualties are resulting from 'dark' (unlit) sites, wets (obvious), right turns etc.

By treating the specific problem areas identified you can remove the causes of crashes and crashes reduce and casualties at very little cost (low-cost accident remedial measures)- speed is also a very valid factor to address when it causes or contributes to crashes (bends e.g.) and thus casualties. Many more non-injury accidents occur than those involving personal injury, the ratio used to be 4-6 non injury for every injury crash. Only casualties justify safety cameras, nothing else.

Some council's may fudge the odd casualty but it is only the odd one - each site is approved on the criteria handed down and those who do the analysis are professionals. It certainly wasnt a money raising exercise as all the proceeds went back into reducing casualties. Rates of Return apply to Department for Transport funding, hence casualties are costed for the value of pain, suffering, loss of earnings, emergency response costs, NHS costs etc.

So its not a mile but thats about how far out you are with the assessment.

Cheers

[Rushjob]

Please elaborate.

What should the speed limits be set at?

 

I will refer you to the earlier eloquent post from Kes regarding the politicisation and nimbyism now in vogue with reducing speed limits.

 

I have no issue with the use of speed limits, as long as the application of same is based on solid data rather than listening to those who lobby the loudest.

 

There's nothing wrong with National speed limits as they are at present in rural areas and on trunk roads, 30's and 40's where there are developed areas and 20's in busy city centres. It's the 40 and 50 limits that have spread all over the country on roads that frankly do not satisfy their imposition from an engineering standpoint.

 

We should be driving (sorry!) driving standards up rather than putting signs all over the countryside.

[Kes]

 

I will refer you to the earlier eloquent post from Kes regarding the politicisation and nimbyism now in vogue with reducing speed limits.

 

I have no issue with the use of speed limits, as long as the application of same is based on solid data rather than listening to those who lobby the loudest.

 

There's nothing wrong with National speed limits as they are at present in rural areas and on trunk roads, 30's and 40's where there are developed areas and 20's in busy city centres. It's the 40 and 50 limits that have spread all over the country on roads that frankly do not satisfy their imposition from an engineering standpoint.

 

We should be driving (sorry!) driving standards up rather than putting signs all over the countryside.

A man who knows his onions IMHO

[Dead-Eyed Duck]

 

I will refer you to the earlier eloquent post from Kes regarding the politicisation and nimbyism now in vogue with reducing speed limits.

 

I have no issue with the use of speed limits, as long as the application of same is based on solid data rather than listening to those who lobby the loudest.

 

There's nothing wrong with National speed limits as they are at present in rural areas and on trunk roads, 30's and 40's where there are developed areas and 20's in busy city centres. It's the 40 and 50 limits that have spread all over the country on roads that frankly do not satisfy their imposition from an engineering standpoint.

 

We should be driving (sorry!) driving standards up rather than putting signs all over the countryside.

 

I had to laugh at your last sentence, as it shows that you are totally devoid from reality. Where exactly do you proposes to start in this crusade of yours?

 

In an ideal world (that you are obviously in), all drivers should be totally competent and focus 100% on their driving all of the time. Obviously you do this, and please go to the room marked 'Only totally proficient drivers may enter here'. You will find that you are on your own.

 

Everyone has the occasional lapses, and their attention may be distracted from time to time (a car full of arguing kids etc), and this is where the fun starts.

 

I have been lucky to escape from many potential accidents in my time as a professional driver, and this is mainly because of experience. A lack of experience normally equals an accident waiting to happen - hence the insurance rates for teenage drivers.

 

Speed limits = the maximum speed that people are supposed to drive at. It may be hugely infuriating to some, but that's a fact.

[Bloggs]

Sometimes driving is difficult enough, and then you have all this anxiety for 28 days, running the scenario through your head, and this and that bothering you. I think the process should be done within 72 hours so people know the score. Surely there could be some online way of finding out your fate qucker.

 

I bet burglars don't suffer this type of anxiety wondering about a knock on the door.

Yes there is a quicker way, out here in the UAE you get a text message sent to your mobile phone - instant!

Then delaying it until Eid (end of Ramadan) and hopefully they'll just quash the fine, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't - bit of a gamble but then again, isn't speeding in the first place?