[Merged] - The Road Traffic Act (inc Speeding)

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The argument that you can kill someone at nearly any speed is frankly stupid?
How is that stupid? It's a fact.

The fact that you can kill yourself by drinking too much water is also a fact. Best outlaw the tap now.
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Perhaps you should read this which details what should be taken into account when deciding to set speed limits.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ads_505174.pdf

Notice point 9 where it says that the 85th percentile should be taken into account, and that its pointless to set too low a speed limit. (unless of course you want to make money out of a speed camera...).

All perfectly, totally sensible. But once a limit has been set if you don't stick to it and get GATSOed then, well, you're bang to rights aren't you. As I've said on countless occasions if you are unhappy with particular speed limits then campaign against them but don't think you can take the law into your own hands and whinge when you get caught by a particularly efficient enforcement method.
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

With regards to pedestrian safety, there does appear to have been a shift of responsibility from the pedestrian to the motorist rather than educating both.
The hedgehog adverts are usually only on in the early hours of the morning (along with the "don't play with matches" ads) when kids aren't likely to be watching TV.

Kids get a lot of road safety information at school. Of course pedestrians have to take responsibility for their actions but drivers need to take more responsibility because they are driving a potentially lethal weapon (when was the last time you saw a pedestrian come out top in a collision?!)
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

OK, my point is obviously a little unclear to you. Let me put it in simple terms:

The higher the speed, the more likely that death or injury will occur (your point).
Death and injury can occur at the current speed limits too (my first point).
If speed limits were LOWERED then death or injury would be LESS likely to occur (continuing my first point).
You argument would suggest that the government, or whoever sets speed limits, cannot care enough about reducing death or injury on the road, if they allow speed limits to remain as they are, instead of reducing them to a much lower level (I am hoping for a response to this point, but not getting one).

Put quite succinctly, the argument that speed limits etc are there to save lives is not accepted on my part. If that were the case, then it isn't working well enough. The reduction of speed limits would suggest that saving lives is higher on the agenda.

Let me just say however, that I certainly do not want speed limits reduced, but I think a complete review of speed limits should take place. Some should be lowered, some should be raised.

You want a response to that point. Well Xaccers has posted an excellent link detailing the rules for setting limits, one of which being that they must be realistic to road users. A balance has to be struck. Reducing speed limits will not necessarily produce the results you suggest. But it is apparent that speed limits are there, in the main (reducing congestion may be another factor for example), to protect all road users, including pedestrians. Somehow though, some motorists think that they know better, speed and get caught. End of story.

I agree that speed limits should be open to review but that doesn't mean we can break them in the meantime. We cannot pick and choose which laws we obey or rather, we can pick and choose but have absolutely no right to complain when we get caught doing so,

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

The fact that you can kill yourself by drinking too much water is also a fact. Best outlaw the tap now.
__________________

I'm sure if the numbers were sufficient, then that might be a course of action that would be considered. However, your argument is flawed for many reasons, including the fact that water is available from many sources of which the tap is only one. That's like saying "road accidents can kill so let's blame drivers...". Oh, that's actually what you've been saying, isn't it?

On another point, my knowledge on this isn't 100% but death by drinking water can be by excessive consumption or possibly by allergic reaction. Just a small point.

Finally, nobody is saying that cars or taps should be "outlawed". One of the points being made is that motorists are persecuted, and the argument that is churned out is that it's all in the name of saving lives. That argument is not believed, much less proven. Nobody is denying that speeding is an offence/crime, that's actually undeniable. But spitting in public is a crime, carrying a knife is a crime, and burgling a house is a crime. There are hundreds of crimes that COULD be punished but aren't, or at least not as severely. The reason is always trumped up as "that won't save lives... we have too few resources" etc. I believe there are other reasons, such as lack of financial gain, too difficult (doesn't benefit statistics enough) etc.
__________________

Originally Posted by andyl

__________________



You want a response to that point. Well Xaccers has posted an excellent link detailing the rules for setting limits, one of which being that they must be realistic to road users. A balance has to be struck. Reducing speed limits will not necessarily produce the results you suggest. But it is apparent that speed limits are there, in the main (reducing congestion may be another factor for example), to protect all road users, including pedestrians. Somehow though, some motorists think that they know better, speed and get caught. End of story.

"A balance has to be struck". Why? And what "balance"?

Originally Posted by me283

Firstly, why is it stupid? You constantly make the point that higher speed = greater risk of death/injury. I am pointing out that there are still deaths/injuries when drivers have not broken the speed limits. Therefore, if we as a nation are committed to trying to stop ALL deaths/injuries on the road then why not reduce all speed limits to the point where accidents/injuries don not happen? Why is that stupid? I notica also that you didn't answer...

Saying that there are other causes for accidents does not make the case for not enforcing speed limits. Your argument on reducing speed limits is stupid and surely you know that in your heart. We do not live in a risk free world. We cannot eliminate risk but we can try to manage it which is why we have differing speed limits for different road conditions.
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

Second point, is actually wrong to say. Different cars, different drivers, different conditions... all have an impact on stopping distances. You might as well say "that car would have stopped from 30 mph in a much shorter distance if it had ABS brakes. The driver is to blame because he chose a cheaper option on his car". As has been pointed out, why always assume it's the driver's fault?

Yes but speed limits have to be determined for all, not for individuals and individual circumstance otherwise they are unenforceable. That argument doesn't hold water unless you believe speed limits should be scrapped altogether. Conditions - particularly weather - are taken into account in trials too.
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

The facts are that speeding is always pointed at. There are no GATSOs that I know of which can detect a drunk driver, which is far more dangerous in my opinion that having an extra stopping distance of a few feet. However there is a much smaller effort put in by the police to snare drink drivers than there is to catch speeding motorists. Incidentally, drink driving is (I believe) impossible to defend, unlike speeding.

Of course a drunk driver is a total menace. But there are undoubtedly more speeders than drunk drivers. And if the police do not have to spend as much (time and money) on speeders because GATSOs are assisting their job then they have more time and money to target other offenders (in theory at least )

Originally Posted by me283

I'm sure if the numbers were sufficient, then that might be a course of action that would be considered. However, your argument is flawed for many reasons, including the fact that water is available from many sources of which the tap is only one. That's like saying "road accidents can kill so let's blame drivers...". Oh, that's actually what you've been saying, isn't it?

On another point, my knowledge on this isn't 100% but death by drinking water can be by excessive consumption or possibly by allergic reaction. Just a small point.

Finally, nobody is saying that cars or taps should be "outlawed". One of the points being made is that motorists are persecuted, and the argument that is churned out is that it's all in the name of saving lives. That argument is not believed, much less proven. Nobody is denying that speeding is an offence/crime, that's actually undeniable. But spitting in public is a crime, carrying a knife is a crime, and burgling a house is a crime. There are hundreds of crimes that COULD be punished but aren't, or at least not as severely. The reason is always trumped up as "that won't save lives... we have too few resources" etc. I believe there are other reasons, such as lack of financial gain, too difficult (doesn't benefit statistics enough) etc.
__________________



"A balance has to be struck". Why? And what "balance"?

The tap was a throway line _ I'm sure you can see the point that I'm making (or are choosing not to).

So, motorists are persecuted for being prosecuted when they break the law? Ah diddums. They can stop that 'persecution' quite easily. Incidentally a lot of trafic cops were removed from road duties to focus on, I think, burglaries. There was subsequently an uproar. My position is that I'd like those traffic cops on the road and more resources (not reallocation) given to tackling other crimes. I'd like to see GATSO revenues going into highway safety and public transport. I'd like to see motorists shutting up about how unfair it is that they get caught BREAKING THE LAW.
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

"A balance has to be struck". Why? And what "balance"?

A balance between daily life going on with managed risk, or daily life being halted by trying to remove all risk by, as you say, reducing speed limits. Taking that logic to its extreme we should have a 0mph limit because then we can guarantee there will be no collisions. The world would stop. So we strike a balance.

[Russ]

I think very few motorists complain about breaking the law - personally my gripe is over how the law is broken.

On a clear, dry, open road with no other traffic, I don't see casually drifting over the limit slightly is going to cause a menace and to be realistic, neither do the police. This is why they have powers of discretion.

I was driving home from Oxford one night at 11pm when a car pulled alongside me and the passenger shone a torch at me. It was a police officer alerting me to the fact I was doing 80mph.

There were no other vehicles apart from us on the road, it was dry and well lit. He could have pulled me over and reported me for speeding. However I was not causing any trouble for other road users and as soon as I realised what I was doing I adjusted my speed accordingly.

Could I have been prosecuted for speeding that time? Yes, I was guilty with no complaints.

Should I have been prosecuted? I think that would have been GROSSLY unfair.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

A most unfortunate typo

Yep.. Was tired..

Having said that, the police aren't alllowed to drink on duty, so should be in a no wine situation...

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

The tap was a throway line _ I'm sure you can see the point that I'm making (or are choosing not to).

So, motorists are persecuted for being prosecuted when they break the law? Ah diddums. They can stop that 'persecution' quite easily. Incidentally a lot of trafic cops were removed from road duties to focus on, I think, burglaries. There was subsequently an uproar. My position is that I'd like those traffic cops on the road and more resources (not reallocation) given to tackling other crimes. I'd like to see GATSO revenues going into highway safety and public transport. I'd like to see motorists shutting up about how unfair it is that they get caught BREAKING THE LAW.
__________________



A balance between daily life going on with managed risk, or daily life being halted by trying to remove all risk by, as you say, reducing speed limits. Taking that logic to its extreme we should have a 0mph limit because then we can guarantee there will be no collisions. The world would stop. So we strike a balance.

Motorists are persecuted by the amount of time and effort utilised to enforce one law. Many other laws are relatively unenforced and unpunished. I would like to see GATSO revenue used to provide more policemen and women, so that crime can be reduced. Hey, that would be novel. Instead, we see policemen and women deployed to sit in a van 100 yards past a GATSO, IN CASE a driver speeds up. That's tackling crime? Let's start dealing with the problems we have, rather than those that we MAY have.

As for the balance, you have just slipped up. There is an old joke about a woman asked by a man if she will have sex for £1m; after a while she says that she will. He then offers her £5 instead and she says "Certainly not! Do you think I'm a prostitute?" He says "We've already ascertained that you are... now we're haggling on a price". So tell me, striking a balance, how many deaths on the road do you think are acceptable?

Originally Posted by Russ D

I think very few motorists complain about breaking the law - personally my gripe is over how the law is broken.

On a clear, dry, open road with no other traffic, I don't see casually drifting over the limit slightly is going to cause a menace and to be realistic, neither do the police. This is why they have powers of discretion.

I was driving home from Oxford one night at 11pm when a car pulled alongside me and the passenger shone a torch at me. It was a police officer alerting me to the fact I was doing 80mph.

There were no other vehicles apart from us on the road, it was dry and well lit. He could have pulled me over and reported me for speeding. However I was not causing any trouble for other road users and as soon as I realised what I was doing I adjusted my speed accordingly.

Could I have been prosecuted for speeding that time? Yes, I was guilty with no complaints.

Should I have been prosecuted? I think that would have been GROSSLY unfair.

Well if you had been prosecuted you would have had no grounds for complaint, especially as you didn't realise what speed you were travelling at which sounds like driving without due care. I'd rather you were speeding and knew it If a GATSO had snapped you then, yes, you would have been prosecuted and that would have been fair. The speed limit was what, 60 or 70, and you were doing 80. Now you might judge that road conditions allow you to break the law in this instance but that certainly does not mean you can say being prosecuted is unfair because you are aware of what the rules of the road are and you broke them. Yes officers have more discretion which I agree can be used sensibly but the lawlessness of speeders is so widespread that it is not possible for limits to be enforced by the police alone (this is their publicly stated position; they place the onus on local councils to ensure 20mph limits are self-enforcing - I have it in writing!).

[Russ]

I'm certainly not disputing I broke the law (although no crime was commited), my point is the Police tend to acknowledge that they prefer to go after the people causing a nuisance, which I certainly was not doing.

This is why they 'let me off'.

However it was a long, straight piece of motorway so I guess they understood how concentration can waver.

Originally Posted by scastle

Yep.. Was tired..

Having said that, the police aren't alllowed to drink on duty, so should be in a no wine situation...

And surely speeding fines are small beer to many drivers -especially if they obey not just the spirit but the letter of law

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by me283

Firstly, why is it stupid? You constantly make the point that higher speed = greater risk of death/injury. I am pointing out that there are still deaths/injuries when drivers have not broken the speed limits. Therefore, if we as a nation are committed to trying to stop ALL deaths/injuries on the road then why not reduce all speed limits to the point where accidents/injuries don not happen? Why is that stupid? I notica also that you didn't answer...

There is a greater risk of death or injury if an accident occurs at higher speeds. That's not to say there is no risk at low speeds. You can be pulling out of your drive at less that 10 MPH and still hit and kill a predestrian. If you hit a car at 10 Mph, then it's likely that you will just dent your car, and be a bit angry at the cost of repairs. If you hit a car at 90 mph and they are doing seventy, then there is a much greater risk of death or serious injury.

Second point, is actually wrong to say. Different cars, different drivers, different conditions... all have an impact on stopping distances. You might as well say "that car would have stopped from 30 mph in a much shorter distance if it had ABS brakes. The driver is to blame because he chose a cheaper option on his car". As has been pointed out, why always assume it's the driver's fault?

Surely the driver should be used to his car? He should be aware of the safe stopping distances for that car (even if he doesn't know the distances in feet or metres, he should be aware of how quickly he can stop).

I do agree with you on driving conditions though. They can have a massive impact on safety (after all, I am sure you would agree even 30 MPH is not safe if there is low visibility, snow or ice).

Last point - very poor. I think it is safe to say that nobody on this board would want anyone to die. But to then heap the blame on just one factor is grossly unfair. How about, for example: HERE LIES THE BODY OF X. HE GOT DRUNK AND WALKED IN FRONT OF A NON-SPEEDING CAR. HOWEVER IF THAT DRIVER HAD BEEN TRAVELLING AT 1MPH LESS HE MIGHT ONLY HAVE MAIMED OR CRIPPLED POOR X".

True, but I don't think anyone is blaming speeding exclusively. As I have stated, bad driving causes accidents and speeding can be a symptom of bad driving.

And, yes, your last state is exxagerated, but true.


Some people (and I am not having a go at anyone here) forget that a car, if not used correctly, can KILL. IMO controlling your speed is part of that "correct use".

The facts are that speeding is always pointed at. There are no GATSOs that I know of which can detect a drunk driver, which is far more dangerous in my opinion that having an extra stopping distance of a few feet. However there is a much smaller effort put in by the police to snare drink drivers than there is to catch speeding motorists. Incidentally, drink driving is (I believe) impossible to defend, unlike speeding.

I think you can query the results of the roadside test, but if that happens, the police re-test you at the station on a machine which I believe is far more accurate.

Actually, I suspect the only reason the police do not use Gatsos or any automated devices to test for drunk driving is simply that they don't exist. I am sure if someone invented one, the police would use it. In fact the only way I can think of that something like that would work is if your car automatically breathalysed you when you started the Engine.


BTW, if you don't believe the police do try and catch drunk drivers, just go to the main exit of the New Covent Garden fruit and veg market in Vauxhall, London at around 1pm any day around Christmas. Not quite sure why, but the pubs in that market have had 24 hour opening since the early 70s (apparently something to do with the market's main trading hours being 11pm to 4 am). The Police hang around the exits of that place and pounce on anyone driving even slightly erratically.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Saying that there are other causes for accidents does not make the case for not enforcing speed limits. Your argument on reducing speed limits is stupid and surely you know that in your heart. We do not live in a risk free world. We cannot eliminate risk but we can try to manage it which is why we have differing speed limits for different road conditions.
__________________


Of course a drunk driver is a total menace. But there are undoubtedly more speeders than drunk drivers. And if the police do not have to spend as much (time and money) on speeders because GATSOs are assisting their job then they have more time and money to target other offenders (in theory at least )

My argument on reducing speed limits is purely that if speed is such a hazrd, then more could be done to reduce that hazard. I personally don't think it is such a hazard, but you obviously do?

I like the wording of "in theory at least"... sadly that's the biggest problem here... we all know, or are fairly certain, that it isn't the case. If it were, perhaps we wouldn't feel so miffed about it.

[Russ]

Seeing as the Speeding and Gatso threads were so closely connected, I have made the decision to merge them both to tidy the threads up a bit.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Seeing as the Speeding and Gatso threads were so closely connected, I have made the decision to merge them both to tidy the threads up a bit.

Thank you, it was getting confusing!

Originally Posted by me283

My argument on reducing speed limits is purely that if speed is such a hazrd, then more could be done to reduce that hazard. I personally don't think it is such a hazard, but you obviously do?

I like the wording of "in theory at least"... sadly that's the biggest problem here... we all know, or are fairly certain, that it isn't the case. If it were, perhaps we wouldn't feel so miffed about it.

Well we can agree on something again I do think that the fact that speeding revenue is not reinvested in highway safety/public transport is a legitimate gripe. But at the end of the day speeding is an offence (whether you agree with it or not) and the only way of successfully cutting off that revenue stream is not to speed.

And it is excess speed that is the issue - the hazard - not speed in itself, so reducing limits is not the point as such. I certainly do think excess speed is a hazard because I see it every day on the urban roads around where I live and see my and the lives of my partner and, particularly children, threatened by impatient, adrenaline fuelled selfish idiots.

On Russd's case I'm interested to hear he was pulled for doing 80 on a motorway. I think the significantly lower risk of travelling at speed on motorways is reflected by the scarcity of GATSOs on them; the only place I can think of where fixed site cameras are used on motorways to any great extent is the M25 variable limit area (and they are there to help/force drivers to ease congestion as much as anything).