Road safety

[Aggers]

I read the other day that about two thirds of all vehicle drivers habitually exceed the legal speed limits.

I blame the police. They are paid to enforce the law -- all laws.

Their idea of controlling speeding is to waste tax-payers money on flashing lights that are ignored by law-breakers,
and notices warning drivers that there are speed cameras ahead. What a stupid idea. Why don't the babby-arses
do their job properly? Why do they think they have to make friends with everyone?

If anyone dear to me was killed by a criminal (Yes, a speeding driver is a criminal, which the Oxford Dictionary
describes as anyone who commits a punishable offence) then I would put all my resources into prosecuting the police
for not doing their duty.)

[Suff]

Aggers, I'll agree with you up to a point. But you also have to look at what laws actually are.

Laws are the restrictions which we put on ourselves to make society work. The police are the guardians of these laws and the politicians are our representatives in making these laws.

Now when we come to speed, the laws are not representative and the policing has become a soft option to gain "points" and rack up a better rating for the force.

If 2/3 of the driving population, which is significantly greater than 50% of the population as a whole, decides that some, not all, of the speeding laws are patently ridiculous and choose to ignore them, then they are not criminals, they are representatives of our society. You can't put 30 million people through the courts and if you even tried to, the basic structure of the law would be broken.

let us take two cases in point.

First let us take the person who drives the motorways at night, 3 lanes, and almost no vehicles. This person drives a very powerful vehicle with a possible top seed of 200mph. This person drives at 135mph and gets caught. Is then charged with dangerous driving, license removed and threatened with prison time.

Second let us take the person who drives at 45mph in a 60mph speed limit. Entirely legal and, you might think, prudent. However this person is driving at 45mph because they are not confident in the vehicle, are not really in control and the person is scared to drive faster because things are just "happening too fast". This person continues to drive at 45mph through a 30 limit. Mainly because if s/he were to slow down to 30mph for every village, having already been driving at 15mph below the posted speed limit, every journey would be much longer than it could be.

So the second person is stopped. May be fined, or may not. Points may be levied but certainly only 3. One area in Fife would not even prosecute until the speeder was doing more than 42mph in a 30 limit.

OK so now let's take the risk inherent in each case.

The first driver is alone, no passenger and virtually no other road users. The vehicle is very capable, can stop twice as fast as needed for the speed the vehicle is travelling at. The driver is confident of his/her skills and is reading the road well, totally concentrating and very unlikely to have any accident unless there is a problem with the vehicle. Which will be maintained to a high standard and of very good build quality.

The risk to anyone but the driver is minimal to vanishing. There is no danger and the driving is almost always good quality.

Now let's take the second driver. This person is usually driving during the day, at peak period when people and children could be expected to be on the pavements and crossing the street. The driver is already at the limit of his/her capabilities, the car is often a cheap mass production model which barely meets the current regulations. Servicing will be less rigorous and the quality of the brakes, especially, will be significantly less than the first driver’s car.

The risk? Absolutely massive. The driver is doing 50% over the posted speed limit where, quite literally, fractions of a second count. Visibility is likely to be poor or obscured, the road is likely to turn and twist obscuring the road until the last second.

In terms of focus, the driver will often have someone in the passenger seat. Will often be talking and distracted. There is no focus, no concentration and, to reiterate, the driver is already at the limit of the skill level.

Now you tell me. Because I can’t work it out for one second. How in Gods Name do they call this “Fair” or “A just law” or the policing of the roads “Designed to protect life”.

Because if any of the above were true, the driver doing 45mph in the 30 limit would get 12 points and lose their license for a year and the driver doing 135mph at nigh would either get a caution or 3 points and told to mend their ways.

But of course that’s not how it works. Because high speed is “sensational”. Good for the “Crime Fighting” statistics and “Good PR”. Common sense? Not a bit of it. The majority of accidents which lead to death on the roads are _NOT_ speed related. They come down to lack of concentration, poor driving skills, fatigue, alcohol or simply extremely bad driving. Speed is a very small factor.

In this case, the person hit was in a 30 limit and the person who hit her was probably doing 45-50mph. Beginning to think that they have the whole thing Ass Backwards? I’ve felt this way for decades now.

[Aggers]

I agree with much that you say, Suff.

Yes, the law is an ass. But, IMO that is no excuse for not obeying laws, which rule was drilled into me in my childhood.

Obviously motoring laws need an overall.

[Suff]

There are a lot of things which are illegal. Demonstrations without registration for one. Laws are broken every day. Cycling on the footpath is just as illegal as speeding and also dangerous. Not adhered to.

Speeding is easy. They have "death on the road stats of some 3,500 people every year. if they choose, they can allocate this to speed. Your vehicle has a number plate, it's registered in every way with DVLA, you have a driving license, the police can stop and search for no given reason....

There are nearly 1,000 people murdered in the UK, of which about 300 or so are murdered by knife and the majority of those from non ethnic Britons or even non Britons. It's illegal to carry a knife now. These people have no registration, no database of faces, the police have to work very hard to find them and the number of knife related murders climbs every year. Police are effectively blocked from stop and search of the very communites these murderers come from.

Speed is easy for the police. Why put that effort into stopping murder before it starts when you can get a speeder. Especially those on the Motorways, they're even easier.

[Workingman]

I have quite a bit of sympathy for the authorities in cases such as the one Cromwell has highlighted. They are in a no win situation.

We, the public and drivers, are not happy to have suspension wrecking speed bumps and cushions every few metres along the the road, especially when it is an arterial road such as a village high street. In many towns and cities rat-runs spring up in order to avoid them - one "problem" solved, others created. We do not like the "I give way to you, you give way to me" chicanes. Where once traffic could flow freely in both directions it is now hindered in both directions. We do not want speed cameras. They are quite rightly viewed as cash generators, and they do not stop speeders, except in the distance covered by the camera.

It is one hell of a conundrum: We want safe streets, but we also want to be unhindered when getting from A to B.

[cromwell]

More traffic police?
Sleeping policemen and cameras are not able to detect a drunken driver; traffic police are. A camera can record a speeder, a traffic officer can actually stop one.
I do like the French idea of if you are grossly exceeding the speed limit, then you are looking at jail time.

[Suff]

It is hard to focus on single instances of brutality, which is what this death was, when so many people die every year. However I was wrong, we're down under 1,800 deaths each year now.

But it's useful to understand the picture over the history of the automobile and where we stand today.



Note that from the 1970's seat belts became standard and seat belt legislation started to come into force.

Note also that from 1990 airbags began to come into standard deployment on cars in Europe.

Note also again, that from 2006 child seats and special restraints became law in the EU.

There is a pattern.

Also note, that speed camera introduction began in 1991 but has shown no real consistent reduction in road traffic incidents. Only the safety features have saved lives.

If we could get the drunk and dangerous drivers off the road, then we'd see a real story. But we'll never do that when we're addicted to speeding fines as a source of income. Regardless of the "situation at the time".

[Workingman]

It is hard to focus on single instances of brutality....

More traffic police?

Of course it is hard, but to make it easier we would need more traffic cops. We will not get more traffic cops because we do not have the funds. So, what we get are the catch-all measures that do not actually catch the most dangerous of drivers.... but they do make a lot of money.

Meanwhile back in fantasy driving world.....

A motorist who knocked down and killed a cyclist while eating a sandwich at the wheel has been sentenced for causing death by careless driving.

Paul Brown, 30, hit off-duty firefighter Joseph Wilkins on a country road near Abingdon in May 2012.

The lock keeper, of Witney, must carry out 240 hours of unpaid work and was disqualified from driving for a year.

Could this sort of sentencing also be a reason there are still so many road deaths?

[TheOstrich]

I think one thing we do need to do is to look at the sheer plethora or speed limit changes on our roads which serve to catch an unwary motorist. Locally, the Hinckley bypass (A47) has around 8 changes of speed limit (variously 30-40-50) within 3 miles.

At least they are well signed - if you can tell me where the speed limit on the A513 Tamworth central ring-road changes from 40 to 30, I'll give you a banana. (Answer - just before the roundabout opposite the Snowdome, but the 30 sign is completely obscured behind another local direction sign, invisible when you are concentrating on turning right at the roundabout, and I shouldn't have had to go on Google Street View just now to find out ....)

Long sections of roads into villages or conurbations are 20 or 30 mph lead-ins (and we all know where the cameras are set up, don't we). Castle Vale estate in Brum (pop. 10,000+) has just been made a complete 20 mph zone (and now the Castle Vale shuttle-bus route 696 cannot keep to its old timetable and has had to go half-hourly just to get round the place).

I'm sure you'll have your own examples. In my view, our road system speed limits and signage needs a complete overhaul and a certain amount of common-sense to be implemented .....

[Suff]

[Could this sort of sentencing also be a reason there are still so many road deaths?

I recall being in court one time and hearing a case about a driver who lost control of his vehicle through stupidity. He crashed through the barriers round a BT engineers tend and killed him.

I recall, at that time, too, that the sentence did not fit the crime. No community service, no jail. Just a fine and a ban.

Speed was not an issue.

A vehicle in the hands of someone who is not behaving, is a lethal weapon. Yet it is often treated as something else.

Unless you are speeding of course, regardless of whether anyone is hurt or not.