The Sun's campaign against speed cameras

[comrade spurski]

If you read the thread, you will see that there are some interesting discussions about speed limits, and their limitations. All of it is predicated on the idea that driving too quickly (which is not always the same as breaking the speed limit) can be dangerous.


Except that otherwise quite reasonable people still drive too fast for the conditions. It's all very well waving a finger at them, or hammering them when they hit someone/thing, but - and, again, the subject is addressed from various perspectives in the thread - something better would be looking at how to stop them from speeding in the first place.

You will also find some interesting explorations about why speed is only one factor in road safety, and some discussions about how focusing solely on speed fails to tackle a lot of other dangerous driving behaviours, which can be equally dangerous even at low speeds.

I agree with this...I think drivers can make mistakes whilst not breaking speeding rules...I don't believe they should necessarily be punished and don't stand in judgement of those making mistakes...my partner drives and explains driving methods to my eldest who wants to take lessons...she explains mistakes that others and she makes so I kind of understand that it is easy to misjudge a situation...I view those breaking speeding limits as choosing to do so...which is probably why I think "fuck em" to them

 

[existentialist]

I agree with this...I think drivers can make mistakes whilst not breaking speeding rules...I don't believe they should necessarily be punished and don't stand in judgement of those making mistakes...my partner drives and explains driving methods to my eldest who wants to take lessons...she explains mistakes that others and she makes so I kind of understand that it is easy to misjudge a situation...I view those breaking speeding limits as choosing to do so...which is probably why I think "fuck em" to them

Yes, we all choose to do what we do - it's just that the choices aren't always ones we're aware of making. Improving driving is about changing the underlying attitudes that drive us, so that we are more likely to (consciously or unconsciously) make choices that are more in the common interest.

People who break the speed limit often say that it didn't "feel" that fast, or that they hadn't realised what the limit was - of course, that's no excuse, but it is useful to know why people are doing particular things. If you can incentivise them to notice what's going on around them (including speed limits), then you aren't just helping them not speed, you're making them a better driver overall! Similarly, learning to notice how fast you're going, and particularly whether it's appropriate for the circumstances, will not only make you less likely to break speed limits, but help you become more aware of themselves, the conditions, etc.

As for punishment - I've often thought it's a bit crazy that, when someone demonstrates driving behaviour that falls below the acceptable standards, one of the punishments we use is...to ban them from driving. It's as if someone who had really bad handwriting was punished (presumably in the hope of improvement) by having all his pens taken away!

I think the move towards driver (re-)education is a very good one, and should be extended. I'm also very encouraged to read mauvais' post earlier about the approaches being taken to the basic driving test. The "fine", for offences, could just as easily be the cost of attending a training class/course, and by not being banned, the driver might be able to put his/her new knowledge into practice. Obviously, banning is entirely appropriate for offences like drink-driving, where the issue is really nothing about driving skills as such, or where people have wilfully or recklessly committed driving offences. But I suspect that nearly all driving offences prosecuted are "sins of omission", and would benefit hugely from training.

And if someone can't demonstrate, after training, that they are a fit and safe person to drive, then perhaps some thought would then need to be given to taking their licenses away.

 

[comrade spurski]

The problem with your banning analogy is that it doesn't take into account that bad driving can kill or maim and in some circumstances it is pure luck that someone isn't.
I understand the human behaviour studies that help with understanding motorway driving ... middle lane driving, tail gating, tiredness etc.
I get how people do not understand stopping distances etc but I struggle with those driving over the limit in built up areas.
People are hurt in their thousands by cars. It it not always the drivers fault, I believe that some studies suggest that a majority of those accidents are caused by pedestrians crossing at the wrong place, not following the green cross code (for the want of a better term), by wearing hoods and ear phones etc. but the fact is that if the drivers follow the speed limits they greatly lessen the deaths and serious injuries.
I have lost count of the amount of timesthat me and my daughters have had to stop half way across a zebra crossing to avoid being hit by a car that wasgoing to fast to stop. I my honest opinion they deserve to be fined and banned...if they can not control themselves when driving then they shouldn't drive imo

 

[Red Cat]

Think I am inadvertently winding people up

Have a great weekend

You didn't wind me up, I was agreeing with you.

I was referring to the people on this thread who are attempting to make the issue more complicated, and not complicated in a 'What is it about being in a car that makes people act in ways that can be fatal' kind of way, which would be interesting, but in a stats about driving kind of way which doesn't tell us very much at all IMO. And so yet again the conversation gets stuck.

 

[existentialist]

The problem with your banning analogy is that it doesn't take into account that bad driving can kill or maim and in some circumstances it is pure luck that someone isn't.
I understand the human behaviour studies that help with understanding motorway driving ... middle lane driving, tail gating, tiredness etc. I get how people do not understand stopping distances etc but I struggle with those driving over the limit in built up areas.
People are hurt in their thousands by cars. It it not always the drivers fault, I believe that some studies suggest that a majority of those accidents are caused by pedestrians crossing at the wrong place, not following the green cross code (for the want of a better term), by wearing hoods and ear phones etc. but the fact is that if the drivers follow the speed limits they greatly lessen the deaths and serious injuries.
I have lost count of the amount of timesthat me and my daughters have had to stop half way across a zebra crossing to avoid being hit by a car that wasgoing to fast to stop. I my honest opinion they deserve to be fined and banned...if they can not control themselves when driving then they shouldn't drive imo

I understand what you're saying - the consequences of poor driving are, even when they do not result in harm, scary - having to leap out of the way of a driver who's not going to stop on a zebra crossing is a profoundly upsetting experience. And I appreciate that you are coming from a position that is strongly influenced by the way you feel about people driving badly: I think you'll find that most people feel very much the same way.

But what you're talking about is punishing people after the fact. I think that - while punishment has its place, of course - we get far more out of getting people to realise for themselves what they need to do to be a safe driver. Throwing the book at someone who does knock a kid down on a zebra crossing is one thing, but it doesn't really do much to stop all the people who don't get why it's a bad idea to drive badly in the first place. Punishment addresses the problem one offence at a time, after it has been committed: but punishment doesn't repair a broken leg, or bring a dead child back to life - all it really does (apart from a smaller-than-we-like-to-think deterrent effect) is make us feel a bit better about what happened - "well, at least the bastard got 6 years".

But focusing solely on speed is just to fall for the last 20 years' worth of propaganda, where we've been sold the idea that speed is the offence not to commit because it suits the people responsible for prosecuting offences to do so: it's a lot cheaper to put up a GATSO camera or equip a van than it is to put police officers all over the place to spot all the other acts of poor driving that happen within the speed limit. So they make a big noise about speeding, and everybody forgets about the other stuff - and eventually come to believe that speed is the only (or at least most important) factor that needs addressing.

 

[8ball]

I was referring to the people on this thread who are attempting to make the issue more complicated...

These damn 'readers' and their book-lernin'...

 

[twentythreedom]

Now I just need something to stop me tanning it on motorways and I'll be a model driver...

I find having 9 points on your licence does the trick

 

[denniseagle]

That would be exceedingly dangerous

Why?
All LGV's are fitted with speed limiters
If it was 'exceedingly dangerous' to fit such devices how come it is a legal requirement for LGV's?

 

[existentialist]

Why?
All LGV's are fitted with speed limiters
If it was 'exceedingly dangerous' to fit such devices how come it is a legal requirement for LGV's?

It's certainly quite inconvenient to have a whole swathe of vehicles whose top speed is carefully calibrated to be exactly the same - just look at what happens when one of them goes to overtake another...

 

[denniseagle]

It's certainly quite inconvenient to have a whole swathe of vehicles whose top speed is carefully calibrated to be exactly the same - just look at what happens when one of them goes to overtake another...

Inconvenient maybe but exceedingly dangerous??
The speed capabilities are different for every LGV. A posted 56mph might actually be 59mph or 55mph. Every vehicle is different,I have driven loads of LGV's from the same manufacturer with consecutive registrations that have different top speeds.
One of the main causes of hold ups, certainly on motorways is the variable speed of vehicles, cars /vans driving at 65/70/75/80/90 mph.A vehicle travelling at say 70 mph is tailgated by another travelling at 75 causing the speeder to slow down by braking which has a ripple effect a mile or so further back and cars are slowed to a crawl .There was a RAC video once from their control place on the M6 which monitored the cameras and showed precisely this effect .

 

[Calamity1971]

Driving over the speed limit can be perfectly safe, depending on the stretch of road, traffic and conditions. Equally, driving within the speed limit at certain other spots can border on being reckless, yet perfectly legal.

Some speed limits are set not because they are deemed appropriate, but because they're a nice round number. 20 mph can be an extraordinarily low and completely inappropriate and unnecessary limit on *some* urban areas, as Southwark's stupid policy of implementing it on the entire borough shows. It's no surprise that virtually no vehicle, not a single one, adheres to the 20 mph limit on Denmark Road/ Herne Hill Road. And long may it continue that way.

25 mph is actually a far more sensible speed limit for trunk roads. If the Ameicans can manage to observe it, I can't see why we couldn't.

There are stretches of bendy roads in Durham that are national speed limit, I would love to see anyone doing 40 without flipping over and ending in a ditch. Yet most see the sign and think they must do 60. Speed humps? Anybody who doesn't want to knacker their suspension goes slowly but I doubt it stops twockers and teenagers in their souped up corsa's

 

[comrade spurski]

I understand what you're saying - the consequences of poor driving are, even when they do not result in harm, scary - having to leap out of the way of a driver who's not going to stop on a zebra crossing is a profoundly upsetting experience. And I appreciate that you are coming from a position that is strongly influenced by the way you feel about people driving badly: I think you'll find that most people feel very much the same way.

But what you're talking about is punishing people after the fact. I think that - while punishment has its place, of course - we get far more out of getting people to realise for themselves what they need to do to be a safe driver. Throwing the book at someone who does knock a kid down on a zebra crossing is one thing, but it doesn't really do much to stop all the people who don't get why it's a bad idea to drive badly in the first place. Punishment addresses the problem one offence at a time, after it has been committed: but punishment doesn't repair a broken leg, or bring a dead child back to life - all it really does (apart from a smaller-than-we-like-to-think deterrent effect) is make us feel a bit better about what happened - "well, at least the bastard got 6 years".

But focusing solely on speed is just to fall for the last 20 years' worth of propaganda, where we've been sold the idea that speed is the offence not to commit because it suits the people responsible for prosecuting offences to do so: it's a lot cheaper to put up a GATSO camera or equip a van than it is to put police officers all over the place to spot all the other acts of poor driving that happen within the speed limit. So they make a big noise about speeding, and everybody forgets about the other stuff - and eventually come to believe that speed is the only (or at least most important) factor that needs addressing.

Propaganda has nothing to do with this imo.

I think that only a selfish twat decides that it is worth the risk to break a speed limit in a built up area (such as I have been describing).
It is a proven, scientific, medical fact that a person (particularly a child) has a hugely greater chance of surviving being hit by a car if the driver obeys the speed limits and cars have a great chance of avoiding hitting people if they obey the speed limits.

Drivers who break the speed limits are taking a risk with other peoples safety...I am not a driver and even I know this so how can any driver not?
Education re speeding is a cop out imo...they should be punished as they are refusing to take the safety of others into account.

When I was a kid the country needed educating re seat belts use as there was evidence that they were needed...prior to this many cars didn't have them and most did not have them in the back seats. Therefore there was a culture change required as the laws were being changed.
Fining those who resisted would have been wrong as it was a new thing...no one now has any excuse for not knowing that they are risking their child's life by not putting a seat belt as the dangers have been known about for decades.
The same is true of drink driving...it was the norm when I was growing up...but now there is no excuse.

Imho the same is true of speeding in built up areas...people who do so (in a non emergency situation) are knowingly taking risks with the lives of others to save a few minutes on a journey or because they are annoyed by other drivers etc and as a result they should be punished just as drink drivers are

 

[Dogsauce]

All studies show that the slower a car is driven in a built up area the greater the chance that anyone hit (particularly kids, who are at greatest risk) has of surviving...it does not seem complicated at all tbh.

Ah, but the faster they travel through those areas, the less time they spend in them, hence the likelihood of hitting anyone is reduced. If, for example, a pedestrian steps out from behind a car in a built up area say every 30 seconds, if you drive through that area in three minutes you'll typically get six of these dangerous encounters occurring, if you drive through the area in five minute you'd get ten. The maths says drive faster, save lives.

 

[existentialist]

Ah, but the faster they travel through those areas, the less time they spend in them, hence the likelihood of hitting anyone is reduced. If, for example, a pedestrian steps out from behind a car in a built up area say every 30 seconds, if you drive through that area in three minutes you'll typically get six of these dangerous encounters occurring, if you drive through the area in five minute you'd get ten. The maths says drive faster, save lives.