[Closed] Increased speeding fines

Sigh.

I'm not going to get tangled up in semantics, all that will lead to is six pages of bickering. I took your suggestion of a lack of critical thinking to be a personal insult, if that wasn't your intention then I cheerfully withdraw my response.

Where is the like button??? ^^^

Not read all the posts. However my experience - I used to drive up the A9 " making progress" nothing too ridiculous but 10mph over the speed limit and looking for every overtake I could. After a discussion with Scotroutes I decided to try his approach of sitting at the speed limit and only overtaking really slow vehicles. Takes about 15 mins longer max over 150 miles. I only overtake maybe 5 vehicles the whole way instead of 50 and being constantly looking for the overtake, almost never sit behind someone, so much less stress I almost got bored and lost concentration.

I am converted.

Put them everywhere? You're goin to see a spike in accidents before any reductions...

You can't possible be talking about any in the vicinity of Manchester. Anytime you have any space in front (either on the M60 or M6), it will be filled by someone, or you'll find a lorry aggressively up you arse.

Admittedly most of my time is spent south of Birmingham, but I still stick to the slow lane and slow lane speeds and do seem to have less conflict and close calls on motorways as a result, even when I do venture north...

I didn't mean to insult either, I wanted a discussion, I thought your point that many people get caught by cameras speeding whilst overtaking was just not viable and lacked critical thought. It is an invitation to show me why or how people speeding whilst overtaking can get caught by cameras. Do it.

Yes , I get that the time difference is sod all over say 4 miles at 36mph in a 40mph limit. Lets assume that on the overtaking straight the limit goes to 60mph. The lorry is limited by law to 40mph. I am legally allowed to drive at 60mph. There are miles of bends and double white lines coming up with zero overtaking opportunities
Sorry chaps but Im off past that truck and I will use full throttle to pass the HGV as quickly as I can then continue with journey at below the speed limit for my vehicle for the next 10 miles of wiggles/ hills/ roundabouts etc.

[quote=tjagain ]so much less stress I almost got bored and lost concentration.
I am converted.

This is a problem, I find that as soon as I pull on to the motorway I start yawning.

Sorry chaps but Im off past that truck and I will use full throttle to pass the HGV as quickly as I can then continue with journey at below the speed limit for my vehicle for the next 10 miles of wiggles/ hills/ roundabouts etc.

On the "only being fined for dangerous driving" point.

That's a spectacularly poor standard of driving to aim for.

For example:

A young Dundee woman who hit and killed a cyclist in a head-on crash in Fife has been spared jail

Jessica Hedley was behind the wheel of a Vauxhall Corsa when it smashed into David Christie on the A92 near Freuchie on February 21 last year.

The 25-year-old nurse was driving to Edinburgh airport when she attempted to overtake a slow-moving HGV.

Mr Christie was wearing a yellow high-visibility jacket and had a flashing light on the front of his bike but Hedley still failed to spot him.

But from a legal point of view, that isn't dangerous driving, it's

causing death by [b]careless[/b] driving

Well yes, if you're overtaking, and it's safe, get on with it, there are however bloody minded individuals who seem to think it's entirely reasonable to overtake 1mph faster than the vehicle they are overtaking, because 2mph faster would put them over the limit...insanity.

On the "only being fined for dangerous driving" point.

That's a spectacularly poor standard of driving to aim for.

For example:

i think we're all agreed that we should all drive safely, its just we're disagreeing on whats acceptable to drive safely 🙂

ok, i maybe could have worded it better, but im sure you understood what i was trying to say, the arguments split between those who will not under any conditions drive above the speed limit 'because its the law', and those that will where they consider it safe to do so, and think that they shouldnt be fined for it if theyre driving safely.
i think we're all agreed that we should all drive safely, its just we're disagreeing on whats acceptable to drive safely

It's definitely worth it to save a few seconds.

It's not speed that's the problem, poor judgement, spacial awareness and general idiocy is the issue.

If law enforcement spent more time enforcing good driving practices it would have far greater effect than punishing those than are more skilled behind the wheel

Sorry Bnnyball, but do you really mean to say that those who speed are more skilled behind the wheel,than those who don't? That because they "know" they are more skilled that they should be allowed to do so?
I am not sure I could agree with that position.as it could be that enforcing good driving practice could include not speeding

Or is it that the more skilled you are the faster you should be allowed to go, to a maximum speed where your chances of killing someone are the same as the less skilled driver who is morally compelled to drive slower.

Maybe we could ramp up fines and use the extra money to pay for traffic officers?

You won't get done by a fixed cam overtaking on a single carriageway.. camera's pointing the wrong way innit.. bloody bright flash tho!

[quote=nickewen ]You won't get done by a fixed cam overtaking on a single carriageway.. camera's pointing the wrong way innit..

Does that matter? Wont it work both ways?

I don't understand why vehicles are capable of more than 70mph in the UK. We should have speed limiters.

(Disclaimer it took about 20 years of driving to get to this zen-like state). 8)

I'm catching up after a hectic week.

I dont really give a **** if you over take a bit over the limit and I do sometimes. What really boils my piss is people driving up close to the centre of the road behind you for miles and then fail to ****ing go when the opportunity arises...back off ****!

bails - Member
Maybe we could ramp up fines and use the extra money to pay for traffic officers?

What other laws should folk be able to ignore as long as they think they are clever enough?

Maybe we could ramp up fines and use the extra money to pay for traffic officers?

5p8 - depends on the cam.. the older style ones take two photos and and calculate distance/over time (between painted lines). Photo 1 = you getting blinded. Photo 2 = nowt there..

[quote=nickewen ]5p8 - depends on the cam.. the older style ones take two photos and and calculate distance/over time (between painted lines). Photo 1 = you getting blinded. Photo 2 = nowt there..

Yeah I just looked this up.
https://www.speedcamerasuk.com/speed-camera-faqs.htm#programmed

It's not speed that's the problem, poor judgement, spacial awareness and general idiocy is the issue.

nickewen » 5p8 - depends on the cam.. the older style ones take two photos and and calculate distance/over time (between painted lines). Photo 1 = you getting blinded. Photo 2 = nowt there..

Gatso cameras - the most common ones on the roads I believe - can't measure oncoming speed. Or rather, they can, but not at the same time as measuring leaving speed, it's an either / or setup.

[quote=nickjb ] It's not speed that's the problem, poor judgement, spacial awareness and general idiocy is the issue.This is valid. Problem is its very hard to police. We just use speed as a blunt instrument to indicate unsafe driving. It's the best we've got at the moment. I'd much prefer to see all driving laws replaced with "don't drive dangerously and don't drive like an arse". That should cover most bases and speeding will still form a big part of that. There are far too many people without the ability or sense to follow these simple rules so we need a big book of rules for now

I agree such that to say that there are many factors that influence safety such as skill, conditions, judgement, awareness, speed etc.
Varying these factors will have an effect on road safety eg increase skill, or reduce speed or change attitude.
So if we accept that these changes will bring about safety we have to legislate for each one as we are able to control it.
Speed is one of those, it is easy to control and has a significant effect on safety no matter what your skill. EG a very skilled person at 70 MPH on a motorway is less likely to cause harm in the event of an accident than the same person at 90 MPH. That is an indisputable fact. Therefore pragmatics and logic indicate that reducing speed is safer. The rights of the public to be safe outweigh the rights of the individual to get there a few minutes sooner.

scotroutes - Member
What other laws should folk be able to ignore as long as they think they are clever enough?

[url= http://metro.co.uk/2015/06/08/10-odd-british-laws-you-have-probably-broken-by-accident-5235672/ ]maybe some of these?[/url]

EG a very skilled person at 70 MPH on a motorway is less likely to cause harm in the event of an accident than the same person at 90 MPH. That is an indisputable fact

Is it?

If they're "very skilled," the likelihood of them having an accident in the first place is zero.

Speed increases the severity of an accident, not necessarily the likelihood. Though if you're going to have an accident at 70, I doubt your first thought is going to be "wow, I'm glad I wasn't going 90, this would've been far worse!" (It's more likely to be, somebody fetch a spatula.)

[quote=Cougar ]EG a very skilled person at 70 MPH on a motorway is less likely to cause harm in the event of an accident than the same person at 90 MPH. That is an indisputable fact
Is it?
If they're "very skilled," the likelihood of them having an accident in the first place is zero.
Speed increases the severity of an accident, not necessarily the likelihood. Though if you're going to have an accident at 70, I doubt your first thought is going to be "wow, I'm glad I wasn't going 90, this would've been far worse!" (It's more likely to be, somebody fetch a spatula.)

Well I said it increases the severity, it does.
However it does also increase the likelihood. You have less reaction time to events as you see them over the same distance. Gong faster does not increase your visual acuity.

Eg (I'm making the numbers up) if your braking distance is linear where every 1 MPH is 10metres so at 70 is 700m and at 90 is 900m.
Imagine that you see a stationary object 650m away, at 70 you hit it at 5mph, at 90 you hit it at 25mph. Big difference in severity.
If it was 750m away at 70 you don't have an accident at 90 you do.

I mistakenly thought that when you said "driving at 90" you were implying that the conditions dictated that it was safe to do so.

If you're driving at a speed where you cannot sufficiently react to events in the distance you can see, whether that's 90mph, 30mph or walking pace, you're driving too fast for the conditions and therefore not "very skilled."

I mistakenly thought that when you said "driving at 90" you were implying that the conditions dictated that it was safe to do so.

Sorry I am assuming all other factors are fixed, speed only varies.

If you're driving at a speed where you cannot sufficiently react to events in the distance you can see, whether that's 90mph, 30mph or walking pace, you're driving too fast for the conditions and therefore not "very skilled."

If they're "very skilled," the likelihood of them having an accident in the first place is zero.

Zero? Jesus, you don't half talk bollocks sometimes

speed increases the severity of an accident, not necessarily the likelihood

Erm...reaction time? See above

There is also the problem that if you drive lower than the average speed of the other vehicles on the road you are on that is likely to increase your chances of an accident, however it would reduce the severity...

[quote=cynic-al ]
Erm...reaction time? See above

And that, because your reaction distance changes as you increase speed so your overall braking distance increases non linearly.

Sod safety, speed is fun. I do try to mitigate that though by doing it in what I what deem as a safe as possible manner. Although I've walked away from motorbikes because I was getting just silly on them and it was only a matter of time before I was in a box. With a beautiful family I won't risk that now (but I've hurt myself more on my pushbike than anything else).

Scotroutes - I don't think its the size of the fines that would stop folk speeding - its the likelihood of being caught. Hence the A9 you don't get folk speeding like we used to as now you will be caught. I couldn't do it in two hours nowadays to inverness without picking up a ban

Not that bigger fines wouldn't go amiss - and I would like to see much greater traffic law enforcement and make it self funding included mandatory suspended jail sentence for drink driving and immediate bans for mobile phone usage

the toll of deer involved annually in vehicle collisions in the UK is estimated to lie between 42,000 to 74,000
such deer related RTAs result in over 450 human injuries and several human fatalities every year.

I would like to see much greater traffic law enforcement and make it self funding

So at 90MPH on the motorway a vehicle crosses the barrier into your path. The likelihood of the event is not related to your driving skill, it is random. Would you rather be doing 90 or 70?

In a head-on collision at a combined speed of 140mph+, I very much doubt it'd make much difference.

Zero? Jesus, you don't half talk bollocks sometimes

Ok, not zero, agreed. Over the last several years, I've had five collisions. In three I was stationary when someone drove into me, in the other two I wasn't even in the car. Perhaps I should start driving in reverse.

But if you're looking ahead, thinking ahead, leaving sufficient braking distance, driving to the conditions speed-wise, are aware of your surroundings and correctly anticipating what's going on around you, you're unlikely to have an accident, certainly an own-fault one.

[quote=Cougar ]
In a head-on collision at a combined speed of 140mph, I very much doubt it'd make much difference.

Dude I am a bit new here, are you the resident troll?
It is almost like you are wilfully misinterpreting everything I say.
I never said that it was a head on at combined speeds,
What if it is far enough away that at 70 you have time to brake and they have come to a stop, but at 90 you arrive faster and they haven't come to a stop and you haven't stopped either.
Would you rather be doing 70 or 90.
All your logic is based on 70 or 90 into a brick wall equals death, therefore 200mph is equally safe.
In fact RL is a bit more nuanced.
However it is indisputable that at lower speeds you have more opportunity to avoid collisions, and if you are involved in one then slower speed will reduce severity.

I am a bit new here

I very much suspect that you aren't, but that's another story.

However it is indisputable that at lower speeds you have more opportunity to avoid collisions and if you are involved in one slower speed will reduce severity.

True. The point I'm trying to make, somewhat unsuccessfully it seems, is that it's far from the only factor. The best way of avoiding collisions, by a country mile, is to look where you're bloody going and think ahead. You were the one positing a "very skilled" driver as an example; a very skilled driver who is driving at a speed appropriate to the conditions will mitigate the vast majority of reasons why accidents happen, by definition.

I very much suspect that you aren't, but that's another story.

Risk can be assessed in many ways but incidence x severity is one common one. Increased speed increases your risk slightly I would say - but increases severity greatly. So overall increased speed increases risk greatly.

5plusn8

See that moderator after cougars name? He has access to all the inside info and whiles he enjoys a good debate he is no troll. He would have to ban himself if he was and would disappear in a puff of logic

Sadexpunk, most of those laws are relevant..... In London. I am unlikely to break those as I don't ever go to London.

Thanks for the pointer. I had seen that earlier and commented on it. However he is still being a bit trollish. If I cold think of the perfect deliberate misunderstanding responses to any of the arguments I have put forward, then his would be it.

It's not speed that's the problem, poor judgement, spacial awareness and general idiocy is the issue.

If law enforcement spent more time enforcing good driving practices it would have far greater effect than punishing those than are more skilled behind the wheel

I agree completely, but to police it properly would mean the police buying an extra 20,000 high power cars and employ an extra 25,000 traffic officers, along with admin staff and other costs... to do this effectively, country wide it would basically mean a big tax hike to pay for it.

Or people can just drive sensibly knowing that their journey might be a bit slower so they plan ahead allow for a ten min delay..

Or people can just drive sensibly knowing that their journey might be a bit slower..

Thanks for the pointer. I had seen that earlier and commented on it. However he is still being a bit trollish. If I cold think of the perfect deliberate misunderstanding responses to any of the arguments I have put forward, then his would be it.

matty - make it self funding off the fines?

I think dash cams trackers will actually be the main thing that alters peoples driving. Discounts for insurance for those with them fitted and there will be much greater moves in this direction in future I believe.

tjagain - Member
matty - make it self funding off the fines?

We could, but the fines would be so high it would be detrimental to the economy, as the fines would probably bankrupt people. I don't know the cost of 1 5series bmw, fully kitted out with police stuff, and 2 trained officers in it, I imagine it's very expensive.

Yeah the trackers will show where you were and how fast you were going. That will help bigly.

[quote=mattyfez ]tjagain - Member
matty - make it self funding off the fines?
We could, but the fines would be so high it would be detrimental to the economy, I don't know the cost of 1 5series bmw, fully kitted out with police stuff, and 2 trained officers in it, I imagine it's very expensive.

Do you need pursuit cars to increase enforcement? Surely cops with lasers and high visibility and someone to flag the speeders down further up the road. I always reckon pursuits are just as dangerous as speeding in the first place.

They still need to be paid for, assuming a laser cam opertor is on 20k a year, then there's the admin, the regular recallibration of the device...

Dashcams might well be the way forward, its a bit orwelian, but with the amount of idiot's on the road who can't read the conditions..

I think dash cams trackers will actually be the main thing that alters peoples driving. Discounts for insurance for those with them fitted and there will be much greater moves in this direction in future I believe.

[quote=mattyfez ]They still need to be paid for, assuming a laser cam opertor is on 20k a year, then there's the admin, the regular recallibration of the device...

Yeah not cheap.
I'd be happy with a limiter, not invasive like a tracker, but just something radio activated as you enter a 50/40/30/20 zone. Like the F1 pits? Could we do that?

I don't mean trackwers comulsorily fitted by the governemnt but that folk take voluntarily to reduce insurance premiums. Its already available

I'd also like to see compulsory retesting and I would be quite happy if motoring was much more expensive. at the moment non drivers subsidise drivers

fines so high they would be detrimental to the economy? really? the money does not disappear it just goes someplace else - into the wages of the police so gets spent by them or into government coffers so gives us more to spend on services. It just goes in a different direction but does not come out of the economy

[quote=tjagain ]
fines so high they would be detrimental to the economy? really? the money does not disappear it just goes someplace else - into the wages of the police so gets spent by them or into government coffers so gives us more to spend on services. It just goes in a different direction but does not come out of the economy

Remember the tory govt in the 90's brought in a fuel tax scheme which increased every year to try to get people to drive less, the opposite has happened. We all love driving and are prepared to pay for it. I can't see the "nudge" stuff happening.

If your chances of getting caught speeding went from one in a ten thousand to one in ten do you not thinks folks behaviour would change? If petrol was £20 a gallon folk would drive less?

Thing is, you shouldn't need a limiter, people should just stop driving like self entitled ¥€*%\~%®

[quote=mattyfez ]Thing is, you shouldn't need a limiter, people should just stop driving like slf entitled ¥€*%\~%®

Yeah thats true.
We have a mega entitled driving culture. Imagine if cars were just invented yesterday. To be legal every road would have to be separated from pedestrians by huge protective barriers, cars would have limiters, auto shut off if they came too close etc etc.
In fact it would never happen.
It amazes me stood at the side of the road watching a mum holding her kids hand whilst a huge bus comes past, the rotating wheel inches from them.. Typical industrial health and safety people would be having kittens.

If your chances of getting caught speeding went from one in a ten thousand to one in ten do you not thinks folks behaviour would change? If petrol was £20 a gallon folk would drive less?

captainsasquatch - Member
If your chances of getting caught speeding went from one in a ten thousand to one in ten do you not thinks folks behaviour would change? If petrol was £20 a gallon folk would drive less?

Who would administer the business rebates?

Exactly..what do you think the tax payers appetite would be if council tax was hiked up to cover the cost...

I can't see any of our suggestions happening no matter what, people need gradual change.

It's a social issue that can only be overcome by legislation, with massive tax hikes.

Or people can start driving more sensibly, which is free, and has been demonstrated to not make journeys that much shorter.

Driver education would help - understanding how horrific accidents can be.
Don't they do this on speed awareness courses, do you get to forced to look at horrible pictures?

Really? Why? Spit it out.

Because you're showing many hallmarks of a returning banned. Which I'm not going to detail as people will stop doing it, making my job harder.

Toys19 is our current theory, but it's early days yet. What do other readers think?

Driver education would help

Absolutely. Education - or rather, the lack of it - is a huge issue. I'm with TJ on the idea of retests.

Don't they do this on speed awareness courses, do you get to forced to look at horrible pictures?

Yes. No.

social issue

No, of course not, but speeding is socially acceptable. When it gets the same stigma as drink or drug or unlicensed driving then we'll be able to, excuse the pun, make progress. But for now everybody does, virtually everybody gets away with it and nobody really cares that other people are doing it.

Has Smurfmat unflounced?

Has Smurfmat unflounced?

I don't know. Has anyone said "Bimmer"?

[quote=Cougar ]Really? Why? Spit it out.
Because you're showing many hallmarks of a returning banned. Which I'm not going to detail as people will stop doing it, making my job harder.
Toys19 is our current theory, but it's early days yet. What do other readers think?

Nice.
I don't think this is true because you can use your cookies to see what peoples FB ID's were etc etc, surely you can find out exactly who I am in seconds. If I was a previous banned you would know.
Anyway it's your forum. If annoying a mod in your first week puts you under suspicion that is bad form.

Sure, that's exactly how it works.

There you go then, so this is a silly game because you know who I am.

Sadexpunk, most of those laws are relevant..... In London. I am unlikely to break those as I don't ever go to London.

Captain / Matty? Why business rebates? It would mean thatthings where the cost of the fuel to move them was a significant portion of the cost would be a bit more expensive - so what? If things reflect the true cost of the miles to get them there then maybe slightly more eco friendly business policies might emerge? It would be a gradual change over time. Its not money going from the economy - its just in a differnt place. Fuel costs are not a large part of most businesses costs are they? Why should I as a non driver subsidise you as a driver?

Maybe we go back to one efficient delivery company not 20 of them all driving half empty vans round the same areas? Maybe local shops become more viable? maybe we don't have scottish produced butter going south to distribution depots then coming back north again?

differnt debate tho so lets not get sidetracked

Captain / Matty? Why business rebates? It would mean thatthings where the cost of the fuel to move them was a significant portion of the cost[b] would be a bit more expensive[/b] - so what? If things reflect the true cost of the miles to get them there then maybe slightly more eco friendly business policies might emerge? It would be a gradual change over time. Its not money going from the economy - its just in a differnt place. Fuel costs are not a large part of most businesses costs are they? Why should I as a non driver subsidise you as a driver?