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

[Russ]

I wasn't pulled over for it - the police officer pulled alongside me and the passenger shone a torch at me as a 'warning'.

[me283]

I cannot disagree with what you are saying, nor would I. There appear to be several reasons why GATSOs etc are so reviled. Firstly they seem to be used in a manner (ie location, siting etc) where they will gain maximum revenue; secondly, that revenue is clearly not used in a way that is beneficial to anyone except the Government.

Every driver that I have met who has been caught by a camera has the same approach: fair enough, I was speeding, I got caught. Nobody LIKES to be caught, but you do the crime, you serve the time. But so many people have experience where the camera itself was used on a road where there seems to be less of a problem, but more likelihood of catching speeders, as opposed to being used in a situation or location where people are known to speed but the camera would be easily spotted. And yes I know the regulations about painting them yellow and putting them in full view, but in practice that doesn't always happen.

By the way, re the M25 variable limits. Great in theory, awful in practice. Not well managed, in my opinion.

PS we agree on one other thing: death on the roads should be reduced as much as possible. What we don't appear to agree on is whether GATSOs actually help.

[ian@huth]

There is an indisputable fact that the greater the speed a vehicle is travelling at, the more serious the consequences of an accident that the vehicle is involved in. Anyone disagree with that?

There is an indisputable fact that people can be killed and injured in accidents at any speed. Anyone disagree?

Is the second fact a reason why drivers should ignore a speed limit?

There is a belief in many drivers that having a well maintained car with such aids as ABS braking means that they can always stop quickly and avoid any accident. Is that really the case?

There is a belief in many drivers that they have superhuman concentration levels and reaction times which means they can avoid any accident. Are their beliefs right?

There is a belief in many drivers that they know better than road planners and safety experts. Do they?

There is a belief in many drivers that they know the roads they travel regularly and know that the speed limits are too low and that they can safely exceed the speed limit. Is this false knowledge?

There is a belief in many drivers that Gatsos are only cash cows. They do bring in cash but only because the drivers speeding past them are too stupid to drive along and not see them. What else are they not seeing?

A traffic policeman once told me that in many cases they prosecute drivers for speeeding not so much because they are speeding but because they are not concentrating on driving enough to have seen the road traffic car with its police insignia.

[Russ]

I think your last point speaks volumes - lack of concentration is more of an issue than speeding IMO.

Driving at speed is not necessarily dangerous, after all the police manage it. But how? They are trained to do so and are made aware of all potential hazards. The issue here is your average speeding driver does not have such precision training and is left open to hazardous behaviour.

Rather than knee-jerk punishment, I think driver re-education is the key.

[me283]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

A traffic policeman once told me that in many cases they prosecute drivers for speeeding not so much because they are speeding but because they are not concentrating on driving enough to have seen the road traffic car with its police insignia.

So now we have psychic policemen, who know WHY people are speeding? Pity they can't put their psychic powers to use and prevent more crime, ideally by turning up around the time an incident happens as opposed to hours or even days later?

Here's a gripe, let's see how you argue this one: I object to mobile camera vans being parked within 100 yards of GATSOs, on the basis that the GATSOs have been effective enough to make drivers slow down (which I thought was the purpose?), but the police still want to catch speeding motorists.

Why? Well, a GATSO costs how much? Let's say £20k. A mobile van costs how much? Say £30k including equipment. That works out at, say 2 Police officer salaries. Therefore we have effectively tied up 3 officers AND a GATSO, when the GATSO is doing the job perfectly well. And the biggest gripe of all is when you try to call the police to an incident, they are "too busy... under-staffed... engaged on more important crimes". Please evaluate and justify that one for me?

Originally Posted by Russ D

I think your last point speaks volumes - lack of concentration is more of an issue than speeding IMO.

Says the man who's just admitted he didn't notice he was doing 80 in a 70 Speeding and lack of concentration!

[me283]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I think your last point speaks volumes - lack of concentration is more of an issue than speeding IMO.

Driving at speed is not necessarily dangerous, after all the police manage it. But how? They are trained to do so and are made aware of all potential hazards. The issue here is your average speeding driver does not have such precision training and is left open to hazardous behaviour.

Rather than knee-jerk punishment, I think driver re-education is the key.

Good point, Russ D. But I have known a lot of policemen over the years, and let me tell you that not everyone who drives a Panda car has high speed training. Therefore they may be better than average drivers, or they may be worse.

I agree 100% that education is the key though. Good point very well made.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andyl

Says the man who's just admitted he didn't notice he was doing 80 in a 70 Speeding and lack of concentration!

I disagree - my speeding that day was not causing anyone a problem - it was soley my lack of concentration.

Originally Posted by me283

Here's a gripe, let's see how you argue this one: I object to mobile camera vans being parked within 100 yards of GATSOs, on the basis that the GATSOs have been effective enough to make drivers slow down (which I thought was the purpose?), but the police still want to catch speeding motorists.

Why? Well, a GATSO costs how much? Let's say £20k. A mobile van costs how much? Say £30k including equipment. That works out at, say 2 Police officer salaries. Therefore we have effectively tied up 3 officers AND a GATSO, when the GATSO is doing the job perfectly well. And the biggest gripe of all is when you try to call the police to an incident, they are "too busy... under-staffed... engaged on more important crimes". Please evaluate and justify that one for me?

Please do listen. These points have already been dealt with. A driver slows down for a fixed camera then thinks, ha, ha I'm so clever, I'm going to speed again. Then mobile copper catches him and says ha, ha, you're not clever at all you muppet, please give me 60 notes in return for 3 points on your licence. The limit affects the entire road not just the bit with those white measurement lines and a camera.

A GATSO is a one-off capital cost and more than pays for itself. There is absolutely no resources argument to be had. None at all. Zilch. Nowt. Zip. And if we removed GATSOs we'd then need more coppers to enforce speed limits so we'd have less human resource to deal with other offences. Evaluated and justified.
__________________

Originally Posted by Russ D

I disagree - my speeding that day was not causing anyone a problem - it was soley my lack of concentration.

But if you are not concentrating and you are speeding you are more of a risk than if you are concentrating and speeding. If you couldn't concentrate on your speed how can you be trusted to be concentrating on other hazards?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andyl

But if you are not concentrating and you are speeding you are more of a risk than if you are concentrating and speeding. If you couldn't concentrate on your speed how can you be trusted to be concentrating on other hazards?

Because I'm HUMAN - you show me a driver who claims he or she has never lost concentration whilst on the road and I'll show you a liar or a person in denial.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Rather than knee-jerk punishment, I think driver re-education is the key.

I agree that driver education is important. So £60, 3 points and training seems a good method of dealing with offenders
__________________

Originally Posted by Russ D

Because I'm HUMAN - you show me a driver who claims he or she has never lost concentration whilst on the road and I'll show you a liar or a person in denial.

But if you are in charge of a vehicle you have to concentrate - yes, people have lapses. And there is nothing that irritates me more than people driving - at excess speed or not - who are oblivious to what's going on around them. They certainly should be a focus for police attention and awareness training. But when lack of concentration causes you to speed - well that's a frightening combination. Those police drivers who whizz about represent a lower risk because of their concentration (and training) - and the sirens and the pretty blue lights too.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andyl

I agree that driver education is important. So £60, 3 points and training seems a good method of dealing with offenders

No it isn't!! How is that going to stop someone on Income Support who will make an arrangement to pay it back at £1 per week?? How will it stop that person if they have blatant disregard for the points system and will drive if banned?

However if someone was educated well enough about the dangers of driving at speed (and overcome the "it'll never happen to me" mentality) then SURELY that will be more productive?

Originally Posted by andyl

But if you are in charge of a vehicle you have to concentrate - yes, people have lapses. And there is nothing that irritates me more than people driving - at excess speed or not - who are oblivious to what's going on around them. They certainly should be a focus for police attention and awareness training. But when lack of concentration causes you to speed - well that's a frightening combination.

Can I assume you're not a driver? I refuse to believe any driver who says they have never crept over the limit (even by 1mph) due to lack of concentration. It does not make you a bad person - it just means you need to try and be more alert in future. Again the police recognise this and the example is what happened to me in the situation I described a few posts back.

Originally Posted by Russ D

No it isn't!! How is that going to stop someone on Income Support who will make an arrangement to pay it back at £1 per week?? How will it stop that person if they have blatant disregard for the points system and will drive if banned?

However if someone was educated well enough about the dangers of driving at speed (and overcome the "it'll never happen to me" mentality) then SURELY that will be more productive?

As I say I don't disagree at all about awareness training. It's a good idea. £1 a week can be a lot to someone on Income Support - if you're making a case for income related fines (I suspect you're not ) then I'm with you although that will bring with it quite an adminstrative burden

Agreed if someone is going to drive when banned then a GATSO doesn't help as such (although if there's a picture of them speeding....); I've already made the point that I'd like to see more resources going into other areas of policing and with other offences being targeted (but that doesn't mean I think GATSOs should be removed)

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by me283

So now we have psychic policemen, who know WHY people are speeding? Pity they can't put their psychic powers to use and prevent more crime, ideally by turning up around the time an incident happens as opposed to hours or even days later?

Who said anything about psychic policemen? You are travelling along a road at above the speed limit and pass a police road traffic car parked by the roadside. You don't slow down and carry on at the same speed. The police car sets off and follows you for half a mile still doing the same illegal speed. It pulls you over and issues a ticket. What's psychic about that. If you were concentrating you would have seen the police car and seen it set off. You would have seen it in your rear view mirror following you. Even if the police car had set off after you had lost site of it you should have been aware that it could have done so and checked your mirrors regularly.

Originally Posted by me283

Here's a gripe, let's see how you argue this one: I object to mobile camera vans being parked within 100 yards of GATSOs, on the basis that the GATSOs have been effective enough to make drivers slow down (which I thought was the purpose?), but the police still want to catch speeding motorists.

Gatsos make the drivers who see them slow down in most cases but do they stay at that lower speed? Many speed up as soon as the detection area is passed and some even drive faster because they have been inconvenienced by the camera.

Originally Posted by me283

Why? Well, a GATSO costs how much? Let's say £20k. A mobile van costs how much? Say £30k including equipment. That works out at, say 2 Police officer salaries. Therefore we have effectively tied up 3 officers AND a GATSO, when the GATSO is doing the job perfectly well. And the biggest gripe of all is when you try to call the police to an incident, they are "too busy... under-staffed... engaged on more important crimes". Please evaluate and justify that one for me?

I don't think much of your estimate of costs but that isn't relevant. The Gatso is only doing its job in its detection area and amongst other things it is a warning that there is a speed limit. A mobile speed trap just after the gatso is there to see if you have heeded the warning.

The law covers many situations and crimes, all of which require policing. When you call the police to an incident you do not know what most of the police are engaged in and the priority of these jobs. Each police force has a road traffic division which deals with incidents on the road, law enforcement on the road and road education such as the "Too Fast, Too Close, Too Late" initiative. The thing about speeding is that it is easy to detect and much publicised because so many drivers get prosecuted but these are only a very small proportion of the ones actually guilty of speeding. My own view is that most drivers exceed the speed limit because they are complacent and know the chances of being caught are very small.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Can I assume you're not a driver? I refuse to believe any driver who says they have never crept over the limit (even by 1mph) due to lack of concentration. It does not make you a bad person - it just means you need to try and be more alert in future. Again the police recognise this and the example is what happened to me in the situation I described a few posts back.

I am a driver of a Renault Scenic 1.6RT. A suitably sensible family car I'm sure you'll agree! Look, I don't disagree with the course of action that the police took in your case, not least because you were speeding on a motorway (where accident risk is substantially lower; I would qualify that though by saying, despite that lower risk, if you are prosecuted for speeding on a motorway there can be no complaints). But I would have been happier if you knew you were speeding, that's all. Yes, GATSOs can't apply discretion but their siting, despite protestations, is risk related, which is why they are so much rarer on motorways (and why they are introduced on motorways during roadworks; the road conditions have changed and risk increased). If they stuck a GATSO on every inch of motorway I would agree with people that their use was over the top. But they don't.