You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I wish people would accept that instead of this speeding kills mantra, which is bollocks.
I’ll tell my brother this. Oh wait, I can’t because he’s dead. Killed by a speeding motorist. The people who investigated it, you know, the professional investigators who do this for a living , stated that the speed the car was traveling at played a huge part in the whole death thing. Around 5mph slower would’ve altered how his body reacted to the hit and greatly impacted the chances of survival.
Speeding does kill and contributes to the severity of any injuries. If you think otherwise then you’re the one spouting bollocks I’m afraid.
Speeding is not dangerous.
Bad driving is dangerous and driving too fast for the situation is bad driving.
No - speeding ,bad driving and driving too fast for the situation are all dangerous.
You have just accepted one of those as socially acceptable and have never had. to deal with the outcomes. There are no situations where increased speed reduces the severity of the situation on the public road.
Despite having lost my dad at the age of 4 in a car accident I've managed to retain my perspective.
"Speeding" is a definition based on an arbitrary legal point. Speed itself isn't inherently dangerous or we'd ban motorways. But the government has made a judgement that X is the level of reasonable risk allowable in certain situations - and exceeding it adds to that level of risk when things happen that shouldn't (brake failure, bad driving, kids running into the road etc).
So whilst I agree with @trail_rat and @funkmasterp I also have sympathy for the alternative view.
But we're not a very good animal at judging risk, and I'm getting way too old to get a thrill from driving too fast in cars any more. So I stick to going fast downhill on a bike instead.
Speed itself isn’t inherently dangerous or we’d ban motorways.
I understand your perspective from your post but motorways don’t have many pedestrians, hidden junctions, cyclists etc. Pretty much one long stretch of road with minimal chance of surprises and fantastic sight lines. Yet people still manage to regularly crash on them. Shows you how shit we are when it comes to judging stopping distances and speed
Speed itself isn’t inherently dangerous or we’d ban motorways.
On motorways we attempted to remove as much of the dangers as possible. -junctions - pedestrians -slow moving vehicles......and still have have many crashes.
Thankfully due to technological advances in car design many of what historically would have been fatalities are now minor injurys .....start increasing that speed and those minor injuries start tending back towards fatalities again.
And that's before we get to the fact that people are poor judges of conditions clouded by their own needs .
You should have said you were trying to run over a cyclist. Probably get off with a warning then.
Back on the road for Christmas.
Almost sounds like a threat 😉
It was a long time ago, but post a ban my insurance jumped up to an almost unaffordable level.
But the government has made a judgement that X is the level of reasonable risk allowable in certain situations
Agree and that is where people may differ from what is seen as reasonable risk.
You could make the speed limit 15mph everywhere outside of motorways and I imagine there would be very few deaths. In fact a lot of people may just cycle as it would be as fast without the hassle of car ownership.
The people who actually need to get anywhere (a lot of people in their own view) would no doubt not agree with a 15mph limit.
In fact a lot of people may just cycle as it would be as fast without the hassle of car ownership.
Nah, there's still the British weather.
Agree and that is where people may differ from what is seen as reasonable risk.
Speed limits don’t need to be set just for safety (although most have their origins there) they can be set to improve traffic flow / management / reduce breaking waves / encourage more environmentally efficient driving.
I promise anyone who consistently speeds because they are rushing around and believe they have a better judgement on the right speed - if you make a concerted effort to drive at or below the speed limit rather than just trying to get ahead after you do it enough to build the habit you will find driving less stressful/frustrating. I’ve spoken to plenty of people who found themselves in this boat perhaps because they had 9 pts and couldn’t risk 35 in a 30 or 80 on the motorway, or they have a job where even 3 pts was going to be awkward, or they just decide to calm down... try it - after a week or so it’s not as hard as persistent speeders would have you believe.
Agree and that is where people may differ from what is seen as reasonable risk.
The number of accidents deaths and injuries on our roads serves to show that people are poor judges of risk.
I agree with poly tbh. Having cruise and sticking within limits does make driving much less stressful.
Bring on the self driving cars tbh then you know you won't be running the gauntlet with someone who has judged that they are running late and 90mph won't hurt anyone....
I am a massive fan of the average speed cameras on the Dundee to Aberdeen road. Yes it's shit it takes 10 minutes extra to do..... But it used to be lethal trying to join the road or even overtake a tractor..... was the car coming up doing 50 or 110 (no exaggeration it was common) it's actually civilised now and stress free.
The number of accidents deaths and injuries on our roads serves to show that people are poor judges of risk.
I am not talking about judgement of risk, I am talking about acceptable level of death/reasonable level of risk as a whole not on a personal risk basis.
The number for you is too high at what around 1700 deaths a year.
Speed limit of 15mph and guessing that number would be down to single figures, speed limit of 50mph everywhere and it would be many times what it is now.
I am not talking about judgement of risk, I am talking about acceptable level of death/reasonable level of risk as a whole not on a personal risk basis.
The problem I have with that is their acceptable may not be mine. But shit the bed your decision to speed based on what's acceptable to you has taken away (without their consent to get involved ) someone's life if you make a mistake -and everyone makes mistakes at some point.
You get on the road you consented to the risk of the posted speed limit not someone else's interpretation of it
And yes there will still be accidents but accidents but on the terms you signed up to when you started your journey.
And I will hold my hands up-it took me a few years after passing my test to realise this and it's largely one of the reasons I've not owned a fast car or motorbike as I wouldn't trust my self not to just give it a squeeze because let's face it-whats the point in a fast car if you can't.
I've had a go in a few on tracks and I can see the attraction but I can also see why folks have the temptation when it's there and why many folk do end up speeding. Many of today's cars feel too safe at speed. -an RS4 at 100mph on track barely feels like it's trying.
100mph in a 206 GTi feels like your re-entering orbit.
At least it was your own car and there was no cheeking of the policeman, that didn't go well for Mr Toad 😯
The problem I have with that is their acceptable may not be mine.
So repeating myself, the number for you is too high at what around 1700 deaths a year.
Speed limit of 15mph and guessing that number would be down to single figures, speed limit of 50mph everywhere and it would be many times what it is now.
What would you do to match your acceptable number of deaths/lower the risk?
So my choice is between strawman arguement 1 and strawman arguement 2
Neither of which look particularly appealing.
Also 1700 deaths but inclusive of serious injury it suddenly becomes 25000.
Speeding is not dangerous.
Bad driving is dangerous and driving too fast for the situation is bad driving.
I wish people would accept that instead of this speeding kills mantra, which is bollocks.
(not that I’m stating you are saying that )
haha, ok. what a gem.
What would you do to match your acceptable number of deaths/lower the risk?
Adequate enforcement would be a good start. There are 1.6m uninsured/unlicensed drivers out there, simply because the risk of getting pinged is so small. These are responsible for 20% of all incidents so removing even a proportion of these would reduce the risk significantly.
Accompanying music.
Also 1700 deaths but inclusive of serious injury it suddenly becomes 25000.
The serious category is pretty broad though. A broken pinky is a serious injury according to the guidelines.
I'm sure it also covers injuries such as broken spines and necks as well .
But I guess it's easier to ignore it and just look at deaths as that's an easier number to self justify speeding
Keeping it perspective we have among the safest roads in the world. Third safest by this article.
https://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2016/11/top-10-countries-with-the-safest-roads.html
Not perfect of course. I would suggest removing the special circumstances excuse for avoiding a ban at 12pts. If your job is that vital obey the law.
Instant ban for using a handheld mobile. As dangerous as driving at the legal alcohol limit.
By and large though we do well in the UK.
My van weighed 2.8 tonne and had 45 horsepower (at the crank) when it left the Leyland Daf factory. Add 30 years, 180,000 miles and a campervan body on the back and it makes for quite a sedate drive!
It's slow but you just trundle along. You get where you're going not too much later than in a faster vehicle. Most of the things slowing you down are junctions, traffic lights, queues etc and a more powerful motor doesn't make much difference there
Need your license for your job....
Here have a moped license.
Need your license for your job….
Here have a moped license.
Can't agree with that, at least give them 4 wheels otherwise they'll start enjoying the pleasures of avoiding
Most of the things slowing you down are junctions, traffic lights, queues etc
The French "drunks cars" would be ideal.
Need your license for your job….
Tough shit, you should have thought of that sooner.
I’m fairly sure loss of job isn’t considered ‘exceptional hardship’ - see here
Indirectly it is. From your link
Risk to family home and inability to meet debts; Allan v Barclay
Presumably it was loss of job that would mean losing home.
Despite having lost my dad at the age of 4 in a car accident I’ve managed to retain my perspective.
Six in my case. Speeding has not been good for my family. My father was the son of a Jaguar Cars racing team test driver and mechanic. Speed was inherent. The UK has seen an impressive improvement in driving safety. But there is still much to do.
Likelihood of being caught is the single biggest factor in driver behaviour. If you drove as if your licence (and livelihood) depended on it, you'd drive better.
I don’t think people think they’re going to get caught, as witnessed by the dickheads racing on the M60 this evening by Ashton.
There’s a lot of talk about stiffer sentencing as a deterrent, but no-one imagines they’re going to be in a crash or get done.
Not perfect of course. I would suggest removing the special circumstances excuse for avoiding a ban at 12pts. If your job is that vital obey the law.
I've found myself thinking a lot lately that simple solutions are a poor answer to complex questions.
Back in the mid-90s I got stopped by the police. They pulled me over because a PNC check had shown the vehicle as unregistered or unowned or something. This was understandable as I'd literally just bought it, I'd driven about 100 yards away from the garage forecourt when they pulled me, possibly not even that far. "Fair enough sir, here's a producer, on your way."
Took my documents to the local nick, got told "your insurance isn't valid."
Wait, what? Turned out, the new insurance policy didn't start until noon that day and I got pulled about 20 minutes earlier. I had no idea.
I was in my 20s, absolutely shat myself about the idea of going to court so submitted a plea in absence along with a wordier version of the explanation above. I naively thought "it's an honest mistake, not a court in the land would convict me!" Nope, 90 quid fine and six points.
I later got a speeding ticket (in addition to the one I already had) and ended up "eligible for disqualification". I tried the Exceptional Hardship plea, my mum was very poorly and reliant on me for lifts. The beak ruled that whilst he agreed with my argument that there was Hardship, it wasn't Exceptional and I walked away with a six month ban and a hefty fine. So I can anecdotally confirm that this isn't argument they simply bend over for (unless presumably you're a footballer or a Tory politician).
Now, I hold my hand up, of course it was my own silly fault and I should've been more careful when I already had nine points on my licence. But the point of this ramble is, had events occurred in a different order and I'd already earned two SP30s in three years before getting legged up the way I did then I would have found myself in the same position.
And yes of course it'd still be my fault. I should've checked the documents, but I was young and excited about my new car and rather expected that when I walked into an insurance broker going "can I have some insurance please?" and they go "certainly sir, that will be a large amount of money, sign here" then I'd be leaving with insurance. Shit happens and 'ignorance is no defence' but the totting up process is not always just because you've been driving like you stole it for the last three years.
A couple of replies from earlier.
Pedantic point, but surely in that case it would have been an SP50? 😉
You are quite correct and that's a good point. Thank you for the correction.
going over by 5 or 6mph is a bit of a joke, in that the speedometer in cars has to have a bit of leeway.
They do and they have, most (GPS aside) are out by 5-10mph. But, they are only allowed to overread, it is illegal for them to underread. So if you've got caught doing 36 in a 30 your speedo was almost certainly showing North of 40.
I promise anyone who consistently speeds because they are rushing around and believe they have a better judgement on the right speed – if you make a concerted effort to drive at or below the speed limit rather than just trying to get ahead after you do it enough to build the habit you will find driving less stressful/frustrating. I’ve spoken to plenty of people who found themselves in this boat perhaps because they had 9 pts and couldn’t risk 35 in a 30 or 80 on the motorway, or they have a job where even 3 pts was going to be awkward, or they just decide to calm down… try it – after a week or so it’s not as hard as persistent speeders would have you believe.
I completely agree, in my case i just got used to doing 62mph, as that’s what my coach can do, but after 18 years of it, if i actually reach 70mph it feels fast to me.
It doesn’t seem to add any significant time to journeys either.
was the car coming up doing 50 or 110 (no exaggeration it was common) it’s actually civilised now and stress free.
This is absolutely true, i drive for citylink/megabus, our drivers used to call the early morning 6am from dundee to aberdeen ‘the wacky races’
It’s calmed down considerably since the cameras went in.
An uncle of mine had an accident a number of years ago down near derby. He was driving a capri at high speed, beyond the motorway limits, when in the dark they came upon a daf/leyland artic that had jacknifed and was at right angles to the lanes. He had no time to avoid or stop and hit it beam on.
At this time there were no safety skirts between the front and trailer rear wheels so he aimed mid center and went under it, taking the entire roof off the capri.
He was injured with some shattered vertebra in his neck leading to partial paralysis, and about a dozen operations, culminating in the upper vertebra being fused with steel rods, so he cannot turn his head without it involving his shoulders too. there were 3 in the car. Other front seat was his mate who sustained minor injuries, some broken bones and my cousin who was sleeping in the rear. They had been down taking said cousin to check out a couple of universities where he was going to undertake teacher training. I think cousin was bashed about a bit, but due to being asleep and already tucked down below the level of the roof, was pretty much uninjured. Uncle and his mate had tried to scrunch down laying as flat as they could in the seconds before impact.
According to the police, who were aware of his high speed, that had they not been travelling at full speed and not been in a Capri, which was low due to its sloping roof, their car wouldnt have made to right trough and out the other side, and would have likely come to a dead stop, probably killing the front driver/passenger at least. They said he hit it at about 80mph, and emerged the other side at under 20mph. Quite a deceleration all the same.
It took DAF/Leyland several years and several court cases to finally admit the fault was theirs, in that there had been issues with the air brakes on the truck, seemingly coming on by themselves sending the truck out of control.
As such there was a very very large compensation payout, although that only helps slightly given the loss of neck movement, pain, x number of operations on the spine, et all, and the loss of the ability to work forevermore and I think it limits life expectancy. At least i remember that being discussed(was young at the time)
Nobody is saying speeding is ok, but here is a example of it and how it saved the lives of 2-3 men.
You've gotta admit though, that's a pretty fringe case and also a good example of "always be able stop in the distance you can see".
Plus, no disrespect an' all, but there's a lot to question here. Not least of all, physics. But if he'd almost killed himself and two others then "the police said it was a good job I was going so fast" might be something one would want to say to their families. And who is "the police" here, the lead accident investigator or some random bobby? Does it say that in the report?
Going faster might well have meant they cheated death, I don't know, but going slower might well have avoided it completely.
I'm sorry but something doesn't sit quite right here. How did he not see it?
Likelihood of being caught is the single biggest factor in driver behaviour. If you drove as if your licence (and livelihood) depended on it, you’d drive better.
Agree and in my experience over the last 30 years I would say there are a lot less traffic police just driving around. Relying on speed camera's that the majority of people just slow down for and then speed up again once passed is not really policing the roads is it.
They do and they have, most (GPS aside) are out by 5-10mph.
When I did my speed awareness course I was told this is an urban myth...modern car speedos are not far out. On my 4 year old Volvo, the speed indicated is 1-2 mph over GPS indicated speed. My 28 year old Landie, on the other hand...hard to tell cos the needle wobbles so much but at least 5mph over
If not, there’s no need for a suit, but dress respectfully (flip flops, football strips, manky boiler suits are likely to see you told to go get changed).
Really…?
Surely we have got beyond this point? I would dress smartly, but that would be my preference. I’m not sure that viewing people differently and negatively who don’t effectively ‘dress up’ for the hearing is reasonable today.
I’m fairly sure loss of job isn’t considered ‘exceptional hardship’
You are correct that in normal circumstances loss of employment alone would not be considered exceptional hardship, but if loss of employment has nock on effects it can be, provided those effects are truely exceptional. The financial crash skewed what was considered exceptional and I assume covid will do the same at least briefly.
Instant ban for using a handheld mobile. As dangerous as driving at the legal alcohol limit.
Just holding something in your hand isn't dangerous so the law re mobile phone usage is utterly stupid. Making phone calls whilst driving is distracting and should have been banned completely.
I’m not sure that viewing people differently and negatively who don’t effectively ‘dress up’ for the hearing is reasonable today.
It's not, but think about who your typical magistrate is - older white male with traditional upbringing and traditional career where they've worn a suit every day. Golf player. Married. Two new cars. Mortgage free.
Exactly the kind of person who judges based on appearance. I know a couple of magistrates and both fit the stereotype described above (one is a rabid anti-vaxxer and anti-lockdown campaigner which shows just how much critical thinking is involved in the job).
Really…?
Surely we have got beyond this point? I would dress smartly, but that would be my preference. I’m not sure that viewing people differently and negatively who don’t effectively ‘dress up’ for the hearing is reasonable today.
If you make it into the dock and your hearing proceeds what you wear makes no difference (mags court is a sausage factory and I’m sure if you ask a mag 2 hrs after a case what colour jumper Mr Jones was wearing unless it’s truely exceptional they’ll not remember). But if you turn up dressed inappropriately for court (which may be subjective to the particular court!) you may not make it as far as the dock, or the court may not hear your case.
This is a world where your solicitor will not be allowed to address the court unless he is wearing a tie and (certainly in Scotland) a gown. You can look at this and say it’s OTT 19th century nonsense, and just turning up should be recognised as better than average, but it keeps the formality and decorum of the court. People frequently appear in joggies, trainers, whatever they were wearing when they got arrested last night, so it’s not like there is a particularly high bar to cross to be accepted. It’s like the dress code to get into Nando’s rather than a Michelin star restaurant.
Football tops may be more tolerable in some parts of the country and depending how contentious the loyalties may be. On the other hand few people are surprised to hear that the naked rambler was not permitted to appear in the dock naked.
You’ll also not be allowed to bring food, drink, your kids (except very small babies), etc into court and if you are a gum chewer are likely to be asked to spit it out like at school! You’ll be expected to standup when speaking to the bench, or when being spoken to by the bench. It’s an intimidating place. The more “senior” the court the more intimidating it gets but the dress code for people in the dock is about the same.
Two new cars. Mortgage free
Mrs TiRed is asking why our newest car is 12 years old and we have a mortgage the size of a small country nations debt? As for clothing. They won’t notice. They are only interested in “reasonable” excuses. Distance travelled, genuine emergency. Lateness is not a factor. A dash to hospital with a woman giving birth, and a totting 12 points is unlikely to see you with a ban. Taking your kid to a cricket match will.
They do and they have, most (GPS aside) are out by 5-10mph.
When I did my speed awareness course I was told this is an urban myth
True or not*, it's only ever used in a way that helps the speeder justify their speeding, or to make out that it wasn't their fault that they were (caught) speeding.
e.g. you'll hear
"Ah, but speedos are out by 5-10mph so a real 30mph might be indicated as 40mph. And then you can add on the 10% plus 'a few' leeway, and then I could be doing an indicated 45mph and be safe from punishment"
And also
"Ah, but speedos are out by 5-10mph so a real 30mph might be indicated as 20mph, so if i do an indicated 30mph i could unwittingly be speeding and then get punished, which isn't fair, so the limits shouldn't be strictly (i.e.31mph=3 points) enforced."
But you'll never hear
"Ah, but speedos are out by 5-10mph so I always drive an indicated 10mph under the limit".
* I don't believe modern speedos are out by 10mph. If they were then you'd have some people doing 20 in a 30 and others doing 40, and that kind of speed difference would be obvious. Plus people I know in person who've been caught always say "I didn't realise the limit had changed" or "It had only just changed and I was still slowing down" or "I was doing 80 in a 50 but didn't think there would be a camera there". I don't know anyone who's got a fine when they genuinely thought they were below the correct limit.
I think the nuance of the speedo overeading quote has been lost, we all know they overead by about 10% and the original quote isn't from someone defending speeding.
What's more interesting is my last Ford you could prove it. If you sat at a steady speed on the motorway and hit the computer reset, it would show you your "average" speed, which always agreed with the GPS. For whatever reason the computer in the dash (even "analogue" clocks are controlled by a computer) was setup to give the margin of error you expect there to be but the oddometer and other functions were using the accurate data.
Current berlingo seems closer to being accurate as I think it's got the biggest tyre option. Swapping to the winter option gave it something close to the usual over reading.
Agree with the principal though, you need to be doing an indicated 40+ to get caught in a 30. I know, because I have (at the time I'd have argued that the NSL sign was in a daft place half a mile out of the village down a steep hill with 100ft wide verges, but limits are limits).
I've no idea to the full details of it. I was a kid and not privvy to them, but it was said by my uncle that thats what the police had said, which was probably due to him actually surviving it. Maybe the traffic police as an after thought, but who knows for sure. Again not privvy to who was who really.
Also, I remember them saying it was around a bend and it wasnt lit up or visible to the very last seconds, but again, not privvy and it was a very long time back.
I was hoping that there being many here from down that way someone would have remembered it as it made the papers, wrecked car and all. Maybe be about 35 years back 😕
@Grobs
Merely holding something in your hand may not be dangerous. Holding a smsrtphone is.
Haven't read the whole thread so I feel fully entitles to spout my advice.
Unless you are looking at a almost certain ban then admit guilt in writing and don't go in person.
If it is a letter that they look at then they will deal with it quickly and mostly dispassionately.
If you turn up you may offend or anger them by saying the wrong thing, having the wrong clothes on, wearing the wrong aftershave... It doesn't matter what you do, you are more likely to antagonise them than please them. They are unlikely to make a big public shaming statement to a letter but if you are there in person they have someone to shout at.
If you turn up you may offend or anger them by saying the wrong thing, having the wrong clothes on, wearing the wrong aftershave… It doesn’t matter what you do, you are more likely to antagonise them than please them.
Plenty of people manage to write things in a letter plea which make things (sound?) worse. Things like "I was really upset having broken up with my girlfriend earlier that day and wasn't paying attention" may sound like something magistrates will take pitty on, and some might, but its equally as likely to provoke a "well you shouldn't have been driving at all" response.
They are unlikely to make a big public shaming statement to a letter but if you are there in person they have someone to shout at
If the speed is high enough to justify a public shaming (and even then they are fairly minimal, the court has wat too many cases to spend more than 1 minute explaining their sentence to you, and legal advisors generally spend that time hoping the JP doesn't say anything which gives them the paperwork of an appeal to sort out!) then you'll be getting called in to discuss a potential ban.
When I did my speed awareness course I was told this is an urban myth
I can't possibly imagine why that might be.
True or not*, it’s only ever used in a way that helps the speeder justify their speeding
...
But you’ll never hear “Ah, but speedos are out by 5-10mph so I always drive an indicated 10mph under the limit”.
Did you read my post? I've already answered both of these.
it keeps the formality and decorum of the court.
And demonstrates resepct.
A dash to hospital with a woman giving birth
Why not call an ambulance?
Granted this is likely geography-dependent, but one of the things they're quite good at is getting people to hospital quickly. The last time I had cause to call one (for my dad), by the time I'd got my shoes on they'd beaten me to the door.
There seems to be a very bizarre, entitled & privileged attitude around motoring in this country.
Almost as if it’s an inalienable right to drive.
It’s not a right - it’s a privilege granted by the passing of your test..
Harsher sentencing might remind some that said privilege can & will be taken away. Somehow I doubt it though - the car is king in this country dare anyone come between me & my motor! 🤬
Why not call an ambulance?
Granted this is likely geography-dependent, but one of the things they’re quite good at is getting people to hospital quickly. The last time I had cause to call one (for my dad), by the time I’d got my shoes on they’d beaten me to the door.
Very much geography dependant.
We called an ambulance for a suspected stroke, the 1st responder was there in a few minutes, he called for more support, all that was available was an emergency paramedic in a LR Discovery, it was an hour and a half before we got an ambulance that could actually take someone to hospital.
It’s not a right – it’s a privilege granted by the passing of your test..
Yep, be interesting to see the result if any offence was a 6 month ban. Can't see anywhere near as many people speeding if getting caught is a ban rather than 3 points/awareness course.
Some still will of course just like some drink and drive but the numbers would surely go down a lot.
Harsher sentencing might remind some that said privilege can & will be taken away. Somehow I doubt it though – the car is king in this country dare anyone come between me & my motor!
I've said it before and so I might as well say it again. The harshness of the sentence is not really the problem, yes some people get off lighter than they perhaps should but the vast majority of people get off scot-free because they never get caught at all. High sentences are not a deterrent if the probability of getting caught is tiny.
Why not call an ambulance?
That's one of the questions the magistrates would ask, perhaps along with whether or not saving 5 minutes was going to make that big a difference. But even in big cities, there are times when ambulances can have significant waiting times.
Yep, be interesting to see the result if any offence was a 6 month ban. Can’t see anywhere near as many people speeding if getting caught is a ban rather than 3 points/awareness course.
I don't know what the stats are for people who get 9 pts getting caught again v's people with 0 or 3 pts. I suspect the "I'll not get caught" belief is ingrained.
we all know they overead by about 10%
By the way - they don't all overread by 10%. They are permitted to overread by by up to 10% (and never underread). Brand new car with brand new tyres and I am agreeing with GPS on the motorway at 50/60/70 with a maximum error of 2mph! The underread + 10% + 2mph people would have you believe that driving at an indicated 70 in a 60 is always fine because the care will only be doing 63, and you'll never get prosecuted for that. In reality, its doing over the magic 68mph threshold.
Did you read my post? I’ve already answered both of these.
Of course not, this is the internet! 😉
You're right though, I should have said "rarely" rather than "never".
But you’ll never hear
“Ah, but speedos are out by 5-10mph so I always drive an indicated 10mph under the limit”.
I have, someone on here actually. They were rather proud of the fact they drive at 50mph on a motorway because they were within 10mph of the speed differential, totally ignoring the upper speed limit.
Why not call an ambulance?
Granted this is likely geography-dependent,
Round here you're just as likely to have a firefighter sent to your house if the ambulances are busy. We're not really out in the sticks that much so yeah, I'd be foot to the floor in that situation.
Why not call an ambulance?
Let me guess, you live in a town? If you’re 15 miles out in the countryside and the contractions are coming every minute…
It was just an example. The offence is committed, but there can be mitigation of the sentence. That’s all. Oh and they will check the facts, so there had better be a newborn. You’ll keep your licence due to the needs of the mother and newborn.
Mrs TiRed has seen every excuse. Seeing it close up, I can only say follow Rule 1 for the best outcome. That might be a ban, but following the rule may mitigate the severity.
If you’re 15 miles out in the countryside and the contractions are coming every minute…
Is the hospital then not further away than an ambulance?
Of course it's an example, I get that. I was just questioning the validity of "I was caught speeding because..." when there's probably better options. If the argument was "I rang for an ambulance and they said they were 45 minutes away so I jumped in my car and... " then you'd have a better example.
But really, this is why the entire system is shit, in a generation we've replaced expensive police who could be dealing with any number of potential crimes, with revenue earning cameras. There are relatively few to no police on the roads or in society generally, the 'beat' is a near-dead concept. There's no provision for judgement calls, no "I'm really sorry officer but my wife is in contractions and my passenger footwell is full of bodily fluids." Time was, that sort of situation would've earned you a blues & twos police escort rather than flash-flash sixty quid and three points. It's braindead.
Is the hospital then not further away than an ambulance?
Of course it’s an example, I get that. I was just questioning the validity of “I was caught speeding because…” when there’s probably better options. If the argument was “I rang for an ambulance and they said they were 45 minutes away so I jumped in my car and… ” then you’d have a better example.
That's why we have JPs to sit and assess the credibility of any mitigation (or indeed defence) rather than computerised systems. Sentencing would be much more swift/efficient and certainly more consistent if you just filled in a webform with your earnings and it applied a calculation based on speed/limit/income. But there would be no justice for the small number of people who genuinely have a reasonable argument. Mitigation is not an all or nothing situation, if you said (and can back it up):
- my wife has symptoms of a heart attack, I dialled 999 and was told likely to be 45 minutes for an ambulance, but I only live 20 mins from A&E (15 when speeding), and you have some evidence from ambulance service and or phone provider of a call, and something from the hospital backing up the symptoms you would have a potential defence, or the possibility of an absolute discharge if found guilty. Indeed you'd hope that presented with all those facts the crown would drop the case.
- my wife was in labour and the midwife said to come as soon as possible, and the contractions were getting closer, I was in a very rural area 90 minutes from the hospital and you show a birth certificate, you will probably struggle with a defence - but you would probably have a good argument for special reasons for not getting any points (which usually = no fine).
- my 6yr old daughter broke her arm at school and I was rushing to meet her at the hospital. You might get some sympathy and maybe slightly fewer points / lower fine.
- my 16 yr old daughter was feeling sick at school and I was rushing to pick her up. You probably aren't going away much better off.
Every case is different and based on the nuances of the case so hypothetical mitigation is pointless.
But really, this is why the entire system is shit, in a generation we’ve replaced expensive police who could be dealing with any number of potential crimes, with revenue earning cameras. There are relatively few to no police on the roads or in society generally, the ‘beat’ is a near-dead concept.
I don't have any data to hand but I think the total number of cops is within 10% of 3 decades ago when speed camera's first got introduced. There has been a shift in policing though - a lot more mental health stuff, and domestic and sexual offences taken much more seriously tying up a lot of officer time. Probably doing more paperwork, more training, and more wasted time hanging around waiting for a clogged up court system to call them for evidence which was never in dispute in the first place. I think its probably wrong to get hung up on revenue-earning cameras - they cost money to run. The alternative is the law-abiding citizens pay for the police presence that might discourage the rest. There's clearly a middle ground.
There’s no provision for judgement calls, no “I’m really sorry officer but my wife is in contractions and my passenger footwell is full of bodily fluids.” Time was, that sort of situation would’ve earned you a blues & twos police escort rather than flash-flash sixty quid and three points. It’s braindead.
There's still loads of scope for judgement calls - the cops do still stop people on the roads and do exactly the sort of thing you suggest, if you trigger a camera the supervising officer at the police can still decide to show discretion (but you might need a bit more than a few words scribbled in a reply box), if the speed is not too crazy and you meet some other conditions everyone in England is offered a course rather than points/fine, if you want to defend or present strong mitigation the prosecutor can decide not to pursue right up until the day of trial, if you get to trial the bench can decide you weren't guilty, or they can discharge you absolutely, or they find special reasons not to endorse your license, or they can still give you points/fine but go lower than the guidelines. And if you are still not happy after all that you can ask the Appeal Court to reconsider the decision. That's an awful lot of possible judgement calls; if after all of those you are still not happy then maybe the judgement call of the person operating the accelerator was the wrong one?
Oh and Cougar - you must be sticking to the limits well - the fixed penalty for speeding went up from £60-100 about 10 years ago!
there would be no justice
Precisely what I'm trying to say.
Begs the question though as to whether the initial judgement call should be entrusted to a policeman, or whether each one should trouble a court. And I don't have the answer to that, the police should be trustworthy but like any other profession there's good and bad ones.
I think the total number of cops is within 10% of 3 decades ago
Without the figures you don't have to hand this is moot but, assuming it to be true, they aren't "ello ello knees bend what's all this then?" beat cops. As a small child in the 70s I was taught, if you want to know the time then ask a policeman. If I applied that logic today it'd take me till a week next Thursday to find one.
if you trigger a camera the supervising officer at the police can still decide to show discretion
Is that actually true? Are you talking about fixed Gatsos or mobile 'safety' vans or something else here?
My point, really, was that feet on the street and wheels on the road would a) be able to think above and beyond a camera and b) would be able to police way more infractions than doing 31 in a 30. A speed camera isn't going to catch someone running down the path with a knife, or the three pillocks on trials bikes with no licence plates that ripped past me the other day.
Oh and Cougar – you must be sticking to the limits well – the fixed penalty for speeding went up from £60-100 about 10 years ago!
I dunno. As a youngling I drove everywhere like I stole it, but I rarely break the speed limit these days.
The last time I got caught speeding was on the way to view a potential wedding venue, I was distracted by dint of being talked at by my excited betrothed (so Driving Without Due Care) and it was a weird not-quite-one-or-the other single carriageway. I got my collar felt for 40-odd in a 40 or 50-odd in a 50 or something. That would have been 2013 maybe?
Oh, no, wait that's not true. I got caught out a couple of years back and netted the course. One of the A-roads between here and Yorkshire where there's no passing places for miles, A56 or 59 or 65 or some such. Hit a stretch with a crawler lane and hoofed it past a tractor and a caravan, tucked back in thinking "yeah, that was probably a bit hot," looked at the speedo showing maybe 73 in a 60. The letter arrived soon after.
I'm more cross about the latter one. The first was totally justified, I simply wasn't paying attention because I was having my ear bent, I had no idea what the limit was and I screwed up. The second, the camera was totally placed not at an accident blackspot but to maximise making money.
.... but, yes, haven't had a fixed penalty in decades.
Begs the question though as to whether the initial judgement call should be entrusted to a policeman, or whether each one should trouble a court. And I don’t have the answer to that, the police should be trustworthy but like any other profession there’s good and bad ones.
It makes no sense to waste the driver's time, the police officers' time, the court's time for stuff that everyone looks at and says, "that's simply unnecessary to prosecute". Provided each person in the subsequent chain of further levels of discretion / perspective aren't simply trying to justify the original cops decision (in my experience they are not, and each are considering it on the facts before them not that someone else didn't drop it already). I can see no benefit in removing the option to drop cases before court, unless you think there are cases being dropped for spurious reasons?
As a small child in the 70s I was taught, if you want to know the time then ask a policeman. If I applied that logic today it’d take me till a week next Thursday to find one.
I appreciate its different in different parts of the country; but the police station in my town (pop. ~15K people) is "unmanned" meaning there is not necessarily anyone there and to meet a cop there you make an appointment. Nearest proper manned police station is 12 miles away. Its a relatively nice area with comparatively low levels of trouble compared to some in the "district" - I think I could be pretty confident of seeing police vans/cars multiple times a day passing through the town. I agree they are not very often on foot now, but that means if it all kicks off 10 of them can be here in 20 minutes, rather than 2.
Is that actually true? Are you talking about fixed Gatsos or mobile ‘safety’ vans or something else here?
Yes (well at least in Scotland but I believe its the same in England). A "civvi" may be dealing with the camera footage etc, but if you write back questioning a cloned plate, pointing out it was an ambulance, etc a cop looks at it (probably seargent level) and has the discretion to bin it .
My point, really, was that feet on the street and wheels on the road would a) be able to think above and beyond a camera and b) would be able to police way more infractions than doing 31 in a 30. A speed camera isn’t going to catch someone running down the path with a knife, or the three pillocks on trials bikes with no licence plates that ripped past me the other day.
I'm not disputing that, probably even worse is that some camera vans are only tasked with speed offences so you can drive past it on your phone, not wearing your seat belt and potentially get no action taken! The mistake is seeing them as either or, and I don't think the shift in policing was brought about by speed cameras, thats just an easy thing to blame.
It took DAF/Leyland several years and several court cases to finally admit the fault was theirs
That did not go where i was expecting. Not the high speed capri chopping its own roof off under a stopped lorry?
Just holding something in your hand isn’t dangerous so the law re mobile phone usage is utterly stupid. Making phone calls whilst driving is distracting and should have been banned completely.
True enough, but why else would you be holding your phone in your hand, if you were not fiddling with it. Just giving it a cuddle?
Is it down the to observer in the unmarked HGV to determine which app you were using, or whether you were talking to it on speaker or just holding it for separation anxiety? or should they just give you a ticket because you could have left it on the passenger seat?
The second, the camera was totally placed not at an accident blackspot but to maximise making money.
Yep - the Harrogate bypass often has mobile speed camera units on it and one of their favourite spots is at the top of a hill with a crawler lane - but the spot is obscured by a high-speed bend in the road – I can imagine they make a fortune out of that particular spot and I have never known there to have been an accident around there.