Now Clarkson is wriggling off the hook...
Comments
-
Simple still - it is an offence!<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:
A speed camera is more efficient than catching speeding motorists than a Traffic Policeman as it works 24 hours a day and does not need coffee breaks, doesn't need to go home in the evening, or take time out to write reports. It also means that more speeding motorists can be caught as there can be a number of cameras on a section of road.
Really?
I break the speed limit every day on my commute. I (and probably 99% of all others) know exactly where all the speed cameras are and slow down when passing them.
If there were more Traffic Cops on patrol I guarantee that I and the vast majority of others would not be so happy to speed with impunity.
.0 -
As explained - the answer is both.
To patrol the A32 with the same efficiency in catching speeding motorists we would require some 30 officers, and repeat this for the other roads - it becomes unmanageable.
Speed cameras and Police Officers are equal in that they can only supervise a small area at any one time.I break the speed limit every day on my commute. I (and probably 99% of all others) know exactly where all the speed cameras are and slow down when passing them.
This is simply a choice to deliberately commit an offence, those who believe they are above the law will simply exploit the gaps regardless- they will speed where there is no Officer as they will do where there is no Camera.
Is there really a suggestion that someone would deliberately break the law in front of a camera, but not in front of a Police Officer?
The real life scenario is that the Police Officer would need to be present to be of any deterrent value.
Type A drivers will still speed when no Officers are present - only tailgating when no Officers are around, only overtaking dangerously when there are no Officers around. The same psychology applies.
The only "advantage" the Police have is surprise and an ability to be where fixed cameras are not.
There is an option trialled elsewhere - the "Cardboard Copper" where cardboard cutouts at strategic positions slow the traffic efficiently.
The reason why these work is the fear of being caught - a deterrent.
Consequently there is a simple answer...
Remove the high visibility requirement for cameras, and the need to give warning. Close down the databases, Increase the number of mobile cameras and we will be raising the possibility of being caught, especially as more sites can be monitored, thus raising the deterrence.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
They have an interesting system in Portugal, speed controlled red lights.
Radar gun, but no ticket, just if you go too fast then a red light comes on 50m up the road and you get to sit there fuming with everybody else held up behind you giving you nasty looks for 20 seconds or so.
People (even Portuguese!) slow down for the (signed) speed controls, and stop at the lights.0 -
CarlosFerreiro wrote:They have an interesting system in Portugal, speed controlled red lights.
Radar gun, but no ticket, just if you go too fast then a red light comes on 50m up the road and you get to sit there fuming with everybody else held up behind you giving you nasty looks for 20 seconds or so.
People (even Portuguese!) slow down for the (signed) speed controls, and stop at the lights.
I remember that excellent system from our honeymoon 10 years ago, took me a couple of days wondering why I kept having bad luck at every set of traffic lights as we entered a village (I was young and drove fast in those days :oops: ). If you coupled it to a red light camera you'd have it sussed I reckon.
In Denmark they display your actual speed on a sign as you enter a village, along with a happy face or frowny face depending if you're above or below the limit - mind you, the Danish don't speed anyway.....0 -
Ah, but no revenue stream from it, so it'll never get a look-in here!CarlosFerreiro wrote:Radar gun, but no ticket, just if you go too fast then a red light comes on 50m up the road and you get to sit there fuming with everybody else held up behind you giving you nasty looks for 20 seconds or so.
.Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
No revenue stream might = a vote winner from a politician's point of view..... ;-)
Plus no processing, no tickets, no appeals etc probably mean there's not much in it in cash terms anyhow.0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Simple still - it is an offence!
Irrelevent and never under dispute, it is the severity of the offence that is in question.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Speed cameras and Police Officers are equal in that they can only supervise a small area at any one time.
Hardly equal; speed cameras cannot supervise, they can only detect people travelling faster than a certain speed.Cunobelin wrote:The only "advantage" the Police have is surprise and an ability to be where fixed cameras are not.
See above. Speed cameras have one limited purpose that controls a tiny aspect of road safety.Cunobelin wrote:Consequently there is a simple answer...
Remove the high visibility requirement for cameras, and the need to give warning. Close down the databases, Increase the number of mobile cameras and we will be raising the possibility of being caught, especially as more sites can be monitored, thus raising the deterrence.
...or just wake up to the fact that driving faster than the speed limit is not a particularly heinous crime, and really doesn't cause many problems at all. :idea:Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Little snippet in The Daily Telegraph last wee, only 1/7 crashes involving cars is due to speeding. 6/7 are due to other factors, not looking properly topping the list.
Interestingly enough, the complete dick-head who got sent down last week (& rightly so!) for doing 170mph+ wouldn't have triggered a speed camera, going too fast! Over 156mph & the vehicle passes over the road markings before the second picture is taken and thus a speed can't be measured.
It was only because a copper was there that he got knicked.
One can only assume that our wordy cycling friend Cunobelin (Is that some sort of sexual perversion I'm unaware off?
) is compeletly law-abiding, has never so much as exceeded any speed limit by any amount, doesn't use his fog-lights except in dense fog, always switches them off afterwards, doesn't eat/smoke/drink/do anything that involves removing hands from the wheel when driving/declares all earnings & pays all his taxes on them/has never dropped so much as a scrap of paper on the street/etc, etc! Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
...or just wake up to the fact that driving faster than the speed limit is not a particularly heinous crime, and really doesn't cause many problems at all.
Did you read any of the posts above, or the references?.
There is evidence that speeding is simply a symptom of poor aggresive and dangerous driving.
Speeding is linked to aggreasion, and risk taking behaviour. MOtorists who speed are more likely to undertake dangerous activitioes and fail to judge the sitiuation properly.
Therefore clamping down on the symptom is entirely valid.
The "wake-up call" is to those who sincerely believe (as do 90% of a sample of under 25 year old drivers) that they are above the law, will never have accidents and the law does not apply to them.
One could also ask for a list of the other laws you don't feel you need to observe?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:
There is evidence that speeding is simply a symptom of poor aggresive and dangerous driving.
Speeding is linked to aggreasion, and risk taking behaviour. MOtorists who speed are more likely to undertake dangerous activitioes and fail to judge the sitiuation properly.
Therefore clamping down on the symptom is entirely valid.
Why would clamping down on the symptom remove the illness?
Are you saying that speeding causes people to become aggressive risk takers, and if they stopped speeding they would stop being aggressive risk takers?
Your logic is very poor in this regard.Cunobelin wrote:The "wake-up call" is to those who sincerely believe (as do 90% of a sample of under 25 year old drivers) that they are above the law, will never have accidents and the law does not apply to them.
Behave Cun. That's like interviewing KKK members about wether or not afro-americans and jews are welcome in their country, it is not a realistic indication and you bloody well know it.Cunobelin wrote:One could also ask for a list of the other laws you don't feel you need to observe?
I'd better ask this time if that is directed at me or not?Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Why would clamping down on the symptom remove the illness?
Are you saying that speeding causes people to become aggressive risk takers, and if they stopped speeding they would stop being aggressive risk takers?
Your logic is very poor in this regard.
No - I am saying speeding is a typical behaviour of aggressive risk takers. There is a link that shows that those who break speed limits also take risks and drive aggressively.
I am saying that if someone speeds regularly we really must look at the individuals driving style seriously and take remedial action. Being caught for speeding is a "red light", or alarm which should trigger concerns about the individual.
Speeding is NOT the cause of dangerous driving, but a feature. Stopping speeding would only work if the other issues are addressed - read the link to pyschometric testing of Fleet Drivers for this very reason.Behave Cun. That's like interviewing KKK members about wether or not afro-americans and jews are welcome in their country, it is not a realistic indication and you bloody well know it.
No - this is a valid point.
The concept of a speed limit is that it is a legal limit posed because drivers would drive too fast on that section.
The driver who breaks this and claims it is not dangerous is acting on a biased assessment of their ability to drive at the speed they choose because it is safe for them to do so. Thatis exactly what these drivers are doing.
Why is this group of drivers excluded from this?
Are you saying that we should not let this group speed - but let others?
It would be interesting to see how you would differentiate a driver who is allowed to speed and one who isn't!
The comment about laws is a generalised one, there are a number of people here who believe that breaking one law is fine, what about the others?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:
No - I am saying speeding is a typical behaviour of aggressive risk takers. There is a link that shows that those who break speed limits also take risks and drive aggressively.
So which one is it? Do people who drive over the speed limit also drive aggressively, or do people who drive aggressively also drive over the speed limit?
There is a very large difference between the two and it would help if you would clarify.Cunobelin wrote:Speeding is NOT the cause of dangerous driving, but a feature.
I disagree, the majority of dangerous driving I see is within the speed limit, and at very low speeds and due to poor observation.
This is probably why IAM drivers are so much less likely to have accidents than standard motorists as the key part of the teaching is observation.Cunobelin wrote:Stopping speeding would only work if the other issues are addressed - read the link to pyschometric testing of Fleet Drivers for this very reason.
Link?Cunobelin wrote:The concept of a speed limit is that it is a legal limit posed because drivers would drive too fast on that section.
The driver who breaks this and claims it is not dangerous is acting on a biased assessment of their ability to drive at the speed they choose because it is safe for them to do so. Thatis exactly what these drivers are doing.
The irony of all that is the fact that a very large number of speed limits are set in relation to the speed that drivers choose. If your first sentence was true then how is it possible to drive too fast yet still be under the speed limit despite perfect conditions?
All drivers who drive faster than the speed limit are forming a biased assessment?Cunobelin wrote:Why is this group of drivers excluded from this?
Are you saying that we should not let this group speed - but let others?
What I am saying is don't make generalisations when the data set you have chosen is obviously not indicative of the population. 90% of a tiny minority group is still sweet FA.
You knew exactly what you were trying to do with that bullshit stat, don't pretend you didn't.Cunobelin wrote:It would be interesting to see how you would differentiate a driver who is allowed to speed and one who isn't!
Easy, if they are driving dangerously, book 'em, if not, don't.
The police have managed to do this for decades.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Cunobelin wrote:
No - I am saying speeding is a typical behaviour of aggressive risk takers. There is a link that shows that those who break speed limits also take risks and drive aggressively.
So which one is it? Do people who drive over the speed limit also drive aggressively, or do people who drive aggressively also drive over the speed limit?
There is a very large difference between the two and it would help if you would clarify.
The statement is simple - read the reference posted if you fail to understand.Cunobelin wrote:Speeding is NOT the cause of dangerous driving, but a feature.
I disagree, the majority of dangerous driving I see is within the speed limit, and at very low speeds and due to poor observation.
This is probably why IAM drivers are so much less likely to have accidents than standard motorists as the key part of the teaching is observation.
I am so glad you recognise the IAM. One does hope that you are not going to be selective about which parts of their training you choose to recognise?It must be remembered that speed limits are exactly that. Limits - not targets. Advanced drivers use their skill and awareness to decide when they should impose their own restraints, below the statutory speed limits depending on the circumstances.
This could equally be the reason for fewer accidents - IAM drivers not speeding!
The point you are failing to understand is that drivers who speed alos take the risks and drive aggresively. They are likely to be the ones taking chances at whatever speed they drive. The link is there - read it!
[/b]Cunobelin wrote:Stopping speeding would only work if the other issues are addressed - read the link to pyschometric testing of Fleet Drivers for this very reason.
Link?
http://www.larsoa.org.uk/news.php?article_id=119
http://www.fleetnewsnet.co.uk/news/view_article.asp?s=view_article&art_ID=44495&menu=1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6736587.stm
http://www.peakperformance.net/online.htm
http://www.rospa.com/drivertraining/managementinfo/driverprofiler.htm
http://www.gocompare.com/media/news/200706/20070615-18182005.aspxCunobelin wrote:The concept of a speed limit is that it is a legal limit posed because drivers would drive too fast on that section.
The driver who breaks this and claims it is not dangerous is acting on a biased assessment of their ability to drive at the speed they choose because it is safe for them to do so. Thatis exactly what these drivers are doing.
The irony of all that is the fact that a very large number of speed limits are set in relation to the speed that drivers choose. If your first sentence was true then how is it possible to drive too fast yet still be under the speed limit despite perfect conditions?
All drivers who drive faster than the speed limit are forming a biased assessment?
The whole point you are avoiding is that the driver who is driving above the speed limit is making the assessment that they (in their own opinion) are able to break the law safely. You have failed to explain how you validate this judgement It is a basic truth that unless the assessment is independent it will be affected by the beliefs and perceptions of the individual performing the assessment. By definition without any form of independence, the assessment is biased. Can you explain how anyone can assess their own performance without bias?.Cunobelin wrote:Why is this group of drivers excluded from this?
Are you saying that we should not let this group speed - but let others?
What I am saying is don't make generalisations when the data set you have chosen is obviously not indicative of the population. 90% of a tiny minority group is still sweet FA.
You knew exactly what you were trying to do with that bullshit stat, don't pretend you didn't.
So name the groups you consider able to make this decision and which ones can't. What parameters are you using to exclude this group, but not others?
Oris it simply that you don't want to discuss these parameters?Cunobelin wrote:It would be interesting to see how you would differentiate a driver who is allowed to speed and one who isn't!
Easy, if they are driving dangerously, book 'em, if not, don't.
The police have managed to do this for decades.
so if the 20 year old you say is not capable of making this decision drives at 70 mph in a 30 mph zone, how do you decide he is dangerous or not?
The simple case is an offence has been committed, Book 'em - Speed CAmeras have managed to do this for years
[/url][/b]<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:The statement is simple - read the reference posted if you fail to understand
So it is how I thought, that whilst aggressive risk taking might = speeding, speeding does not necessarily = aggressive risk taking.Cunobelin wrote:I am so glad you recognise the IAM. One does hope that you are not going to be selective about which parts of their training you choose to recognise?
I am so glad you ignored the point about poor observation being far more dangerous than speeding, choosing instead to try and score points in another argument which as I have said many times (though you also choose to ignore it) is not relevent to me.Cunobelin wrote:This could equally be the reason for fewer accidents - IAM drivers not speeding!
Again you ignore the fact that as the UK Department for Transport say, speeding is far less of a problem than poor observation.Cunobelin wrote:The point you are failing to understand is that drivers who speed alos take the risks and drive aggresively. They are likely to be the ones taking chances at whatever speed they drive. The link is there - read it!
I have read your links and nowhere does it state this.Cunobelin wrote:]The whole point you are avoiding is that the driver who is driving above the speed limit is making the assessment that they (in their own opinion) are able to break the law safely. You have failed to explain how you validate this judgement It is a basic truth that unless the assessment is independent it will be affected by the beliefs and perceptions of the individual performing the assessment. By definition without any form of independence, the assessment is biased. Can you explain how anyone can assess their own performance without bias?.
So police drivers should never break the speed limit as they cannot assess their own driving?Cunobelin wrote:So name the groups you consider able to make this decision and which ones can't. What parameters are you using to exclude this group, but not others?
Oris it simply that you don't want to discuss these parameters?
I have never said that certain groups should be allowed to make those decisions.
Once again you are inventing arguments because you cannot counter what I actually write.Cunobelin wrote:The simple case is an offence has been committed, Book 'em - Speed CAmeras have managed to do this for years
Why not book 'em for driving dangerously, if they are driving dangerously?
I won't expect an answer, you didn't give one the last time I asked the question.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Results showed that those who scored high on sensation seeking, normlessness and driver anger reported more frequent risky driving compared to those who scored low on these variables. They were more often involved in both speeding and ignorance of traffic rules. Respondents involved in risk taking-behaviour experienced near-accidents and crashes leading to both injuries and material damage more often than other driversam so glad you ignored the point about poor observation being far more dangerous than speeding, choosing instead to try and score points in another argument which as I have said many times (though you also choose to ignore it) is not relevent to me.
The IAM clearly stated the two are linked, why do you wish to separate them?
Speeding is a signal of risk taking behaviour, this is also manifested in taking less visual and other information. Speeding motorists are therefore less likely to take adequate observation. Choosing to ignore the link is not going to make it change. Risk taking is the problem and includes both the speeding and lack of observation is inseperable components. Whether one is deemed to be greater than the other is irrelevant. In these drivers both are a problem.
OF course deeming it irrelevant personally is much easier than constructively explaining k-why you refuse to recognise risk taking behaviour as a road safety problem!Again you ignore the fact that as the UK Department for Transport say, speeding is far less of a problem than poor observation.
As above te two are linked and an indicator of risk taking behaviour. Again why do you refuse to recognise these personality traits as a road safety problem?I have read your links and nowhere does it state this.
See the one at the start, and please explain how you came to this bizarre conclusion?So police drivers should never break the speed limit as they cannot assess their own driving?
No the case at all. Leaving aside the formal raised benefits from an emergency vehile dealiing with an emergency compared with a numpty who "just wants to drive fast". You appear supremely ignorant of the processes involved here. With the controls, reviews and the assessments in place - this is certainly not the case. I suggest you do some research here.I have never said that certain groups should be allowed to make those decisions.
So how do plan to decide which motorists are safe to speed and which aren't?Why not book 'em for driving dangerously, if they are driving dangerously?
Not a probklem. Ifthey are driving dangerously. The offence that has been committed though is speeding - why not simply charge tham for the ofence they are committing?
Its like carrying a weapon -this is an offence, so if they haven't actually stabbed someone we shouldn't charge them with the minor offence?
As above speeding is a symptom of an risk taking behaviour and should be censured as part of a total road safety programme as opposed to selective enforcement.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Lets try and make this really simple: risky drivers going on to break the speed limit is very different to saying drivers who break the speed limit are risky.
You are getting the two confused, and in doing so misinterpreting the links you refer to.
Look at your first quote in your last post for an example.
It does not say that drivers who break the speed limit are likely to be risky drivers.
Understand now?
You've been making that mistake for the last three pages.Cunobelin wrote:No the case at all. Leaving aside the formal raised benefits from an emergency vehile dealiing with an emergency compared with a numpty who "just wants to drive fast". You appear supremely ignorant of the processes involved here. With the controls, reviews and the assessments in place - this is certainly not the case. I suggest you do some research here.
No, not ignorant, I am well aware.
So you have finally stated that it is ok for some drivers to break the speed limit.
Finally getting somewhere.
Cunobelin wrote:So how do plan to decide which motorists are safe to speed and which aren't?
Already said, let the police do that.Cunobelin wrote:Not a probklem. Ifthey are driving dangerously. The offence that has been committed though is speeding - why not simply charge tham for the ofence they are committing?
If the speeding isn't dangerous, why should it be an offence? If it is dangerous than other laws apply. That's simplicity.Cunobelin wrote:Its like carrying a weapon -this is an offence, so if they haven't actually stabbed someone we shouldn't charge them with the minor offence?
That's another offence I don't agree with. I have a beautifully engraved yet extremely functional pocket knife which I am now not allowed to carry. The people who are going to use a weapon against someone will still do it, the law only affects the law abiding.
Same as banning handguns. Waste of time, a lot of the public's money, and hasn't curbed gun crime at all, but all that's for another thread.Cunobelin wrote:As above speeding is a symptom of an risk taking behaviour and should be censured as part of a total road safety programme as opposed to selective enforcement.
As above, curing the symptom does not rid us of the disease. Selective enforcement would be ok if we selected things that are a major cause of problems on our roads, rather than speeding that is not a major problem just easy to enforce.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
So in summation in principle you do not accept that speeding is an offence and feel tht as you disagree with the offence no-one should be fined for speeding.
You also feel that carrying an offensive weapon is another offence you disagree with and therefore no-one should be censured for.
It is apparent that despite the evidence you do not accept risk taking behaviour as dangerous, and wish to consider speeding alone - Bizarre to say the least, but easirer than constructive statements as to why risj taking is safe as you are suggesting
Are you really suggesting thathere is no link whatsoever between speding and risj taking behaviour?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:So in summation in principle you do not accept that speeding is an offence and feel tht as you disagree with the offence no-one should be fined for speeding.
Speeding is an offence, that has never been in dispute. Just because I disagree with a law doesn't mean I think I or anyone else should be able to break it, as I have said many times.Cunobelin wrote:You also feel that carrying an offensive weapon is another offence you disagree with and therefore no-one should be censured for.
Like I said, if you want to start a new topic of conversation, start a new thread, but as you have mentioned it, no, you are wrong again.Cunobelin wrote:It is apparent that despite the evidence you do not accept risk taking behaviour as dangerous
Wrong again.Cunobelin wrote:and wish to consider speeding alone
...and again.Cunobelin wrote:- Bizarre to say the least, but easirer than constructive statements as to why risj taking is safe as you are suggesting
...and again!
that is not what i am suggesting.Cunobelin wrote:Are you really suggesting thathere is no link whatsoever between speding and risj taking behaviour?
No, but you should be writing it as "risk taking behaviour can lead to speeding" not the other way around, or writing it as ambiguously as you just did, which you are only doing as your obvious ruse to try and twist research to fit your opinion has been pointed out by me to be just that.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Cunobelin wrote:So in summation in principle you do not accept that speeding is an offence and feel tht as you disagree with the offence no-one should be fined for speeding.
Speeding is an offence, that has never been in dispute. Just because I disagree with a law doesn't mean I think I or anyone else should be able to break it, as I have said many times.
So why are you arguing against the offenders being fined, or do you now accept that it is corect to enforce the law in this area?Cunobelin wrote:You also feel that carrying an offensive weapon is another offence you disagree with and therefore no-one should be censured for.
Like I said, if you want to start a new topic of conversation, start a new thread, but as you have mentioned it, no, you are wrong again.
Not a new topic at all, something you have a problem with - its called a "comparison" you really need to learn the difference. So would you have a problem with being arrested for carrying an offensive weapon or not?Cunobelin wrote:It is apparent that despite the evidence you do not accept risk taking behaviour as dangerous
Wrong again.
SO you accept the statement that speeding is a feature of risk taking behaviour then?Cunobelin wrote:and wish to consider speeding alone
...and again.Cunobelin wrote:- Bizarre to say the least, but easirer than constructive statements as to why risj taking is safe as you are suggesting
...and again!
that is not what i am suggesting.
{b] So what are you suggesting?[/b]Cunobelin wrote:Are you really suggesting thathere is no link whatsoever between speding and risj taking behaviour?
No, but you should be writing it as "risk taking behaviour can lead to speeding" not the other way around, or writing it as ambiguously as you just did, which you are only doing as your obvious ruse to try and twist research to fit your opinion has been pointed out by me to be just that.
Why can you not understand the simple connection........... It is not ambiguous. Speeding is a "red flag" for other dangerous driving. Drivers caught speeding are more likely to be in accidents. Censuring speeding is correct and justified.
The two are irrevocably linked.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Why can you not understand the simple connection........... It is not ambiguous. Speeding is a "red flag" for other dangerous driving. Drivers caught speeding are more likely to be in accidents. Censuring speeding is correct and justified.
The two are irrevocably linked.
It is you that is having trouble understanding it.
I don't know how I can more simply put it.
You keep referring to research to try and show that speeding leads to dangerous driving, but the research you refer to does not state this.
Just because dangerous drivers speed, doesn't mean that speeders are dangerous drivers.
There, that's about as basic a statement as I can come up with for you.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
You're using the same words, but talking about 2 different things.
Obviously the faster you driver, the more dangerous it is, 5mph is more dangerous than 3mph, as you have less time to react to a given situation. Each extra 1mph increases the danger, exponentially. Obviously there are situations where the danger is acceptably low, and people are allowed to go above 0mph and get moving ;-)
You can think of the speed limit as setting the danger level that is considered acceptable for the average driver.
Now then, on the other hand, there are better drivers, more alert and with a better performing car who may be "safer" at 80mph than the average driver at 60mph. Of course at 80mph they are not safer than they themselves would be at 60mph, but that may be a seperate issue.
So, should speed limits, like the cost of bread be an absolute, or should they be like taxes, on a sliding scale depending on related factors?
Would it be more acceptable to remove all requirements to keep to the speed limits, but if you were above the posted limit and had an accident (even if it was not your "fault) then impose much heavier punishments?
Should there be an absolute requirement to prove dangerous behavior in driving, rather than just speeding? Or is speeding and having an accident enough of a sign that the driving was dangerous?0 -
Just because dangerous drivers speed, doesn't mean that speeders are dangerous drivers.
Note the terms "red flag" and warning". Your argument is that speeding is not dangerous, this proves that in many cases as part of a risk taking style it simply is!
You seem to have the idea that speeding has to be dangerous in itself to be an offence. (It is an offence in its own right). Your hypothesis that speeding drivers should be booked for dangerous driving is hence a red herring. It is simple - fine for the offence committed.
The way it works is simple. The Type A rivers will speed. They will be amongst those caught speeding, this is where you pick them up.Recidivist and hard line speeders will be better recognised and picked up as they repeat the offence.
Simply to get caught you have broken the law, those who break this law are shown to more likely to break others, use the signals and accept the factthatthis driver has show that through incompetence, stupidity or arrogance they are unable to drive inthe proscribed way.
Take the example above. Warning signs, speed indicator signs and a massive yellow box. The driver is safe to speed because they are taking adequate observations, but missed all this?
DIfferent definition of "adequate observation" to the one I would use. This simply proves they were not taking adequate observation, hence by the example not driving safely..<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
CarlosFerreiro wrote:You're using the same words, but talking about 2 different things.
Obviously the faster you driver, the more dangerous it is, 5mph is more dangerous than 3mph, as you have less time to react to a given situation. Each extra 1mph increases the danger, exponentially. Obviously there are situations where the danger is acceptably low, and people are allowed to go above 0mph and get moving ;-)
You can think of the speed limit as setting the danger level that is considered acceptable for the average driver.
Now then, on the other hand, there are better drivers, more alert and with a better performing car who may be "safer" at 80mph than the average driver at 60mph. Of course at 80mph they are not safer than they themselves would be at 60mph, but that may be a seperate issue.
So, should speed limits, like the cost of bread be an absolute, or should they be like taxes, on a sliding scale depending on related factors?
Would it be more acceptable to remove all requirements to keep to the speed limits, but if you were above the posted limit and had an accident (even if it was not your "fault) then impose much heavier punishments?
Should there be an absolute requirement to prove dangerous behavior in driving, rather than just speeding? Or is speeding and having an accident enough of a sign that the driving was dangerous?
The problem here is recognition, as above the less than 25 year olds who felt they were the good drivers, and capable of driving aggressively and fast, but without danger as their skills are so good. How can you tel which driver is "capable" and which one isn't
Hence the speed limit and the setting of them. Iven the advanced driver groups such as the IAM recognise that it is safe, sensible and required to drive within the limit.
What we haven't discussed yet as it is more "ephemeral" is the other costs. Many urban speed limits are at the request of residents who staand a chance of crossing the road with 30 mph traffic not the 70 / 80 the drivers choose.
We have local speed restrictions and enforcement at a school where the average speed of the drivers during the leaving period was 45 mph. That was the speed they felt safe to drive at a point where school crossing patrols were operating, and childeren crosing. After several accidents (two on a crossing point) It is now an enforced 20 and there have been no accidents since!
Who has the right to choose this limit - the resident who lives and crsses the road, or the 45 mph driver?
The same with speed differential, the perception of a small residential road with 40 - 50 mph traffic to the cyclist or pedestrian is that it is unsafe. Why should we not recognise their concerns and improve their environment by enforcing the speed limit.
Finally - the speeding / accident argument. I have always disagreed with this. If a recidivist speeder is allowed to continue until they have an accident where we could havepicked up the behaviour type and prevented the accident by removing his licence - is there a moraal responsibility here?
Personally - I would like to see psychometric testing as part of the speeding censure and then remedial education / action taken for the risk takers at this stage. If the industry recognises this as a problem within their employees and addresses it, why shouldn't we do so for the public.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
And your evidence for this is what? References please.Cunobelin wrote:Drivers caught speeding are more likely to be in accidents.
Exceeding the speed limit may be the whole spectrum between "Innocuous" to "Criminally Assinine"
Let's take the M6, there are some lovely, straight, well-surfaced bits on it. Doing 100mph along these at 6am on a sunny Sunday morning in June is illegal, but the increase in danger to yourself and other road users is minimal.
Doing the same speed, same stretch at 6pm on a wet, foggy Friday in December is also illegal, but the increase in danger to yourself & other road users is severe.
You may have noticed that speed limits in other countries vary, motorway limits in France are, IIRC, 130kph, Italy 140kph, Germany has some unlimited stretches. Lower limits tend to be applied in bad weather. Urban limits vary too.
Now, this quote is completely stupid and irresponsible..
Are you trying to say that if you're driving at 29mph in a 30 limit, then you're driving safely?it is safe, sensible and required to drive within the limit.
There is too much emphasis on speeding, why? Because it's an easy to measure variable that brings more money into the Government's coffers for them to blow on armies of unproductive public employees.
Speed cameras can't catch bad drivers.Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Your argument is that speeding is not dangerous
No, I have never said that.Cunobelin wrote:You seem to have the idea that speeding has to be dangerous in itself to be an offence.
Why you have come to that conclusion when I have posted to the contrary many times now is beyond me.
Ok, it's not beyond me, it's because you can't argue against the things I post, so you simply make it up!Cunobelin wrote:Take the example above. Warning signs, speed indicator signs and a massive yellow box. The driver is safe to speed because they are taking adequate observations, but missed all this?
Now you are using my earlier point, that those who miss a bright yellow box are probably bad drivers due to poor observation, not the speed at which they drive.Cunobelin wrote:DIfferent definition of "adequate observation" to the one I would use. This simply proves they were not taking adequate observation, hence by the example not driving safely..
Correct, poor observation is bad driving, and a major cause of accidents.
Unlike speeding.
After wrongly using research to try (and fail) to prove your original point, you now seem to be agreeing with what I have said all along.
Time to concede to reality, Cunobelin.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Hence the speed limit and the setting of them. Iven the advanced driver groups such as the IAM recognise that it is safe, sensible and required to drive within the limit.
I'll just pick up on this one error for the moment, as it seems to be a common one made.
The IAM do not teach people to drive in excess of the speed limit. No charity could survive if they openly preached to disobey the law, any law.
What the IAM does demonstrate is that a safe speed will constantly vary, from some way under the limit to some way over it.
Recognising the speed limit as "safe and sensible" is totally against what the IAM teaches.
It is this sort of blind, thoughtless ignorance that is the root of bad driving.
I hope that has cleared it up for you.
Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
The IAM do not teach people to drive in excess of the speed limit. No charity could survive if they openly preached to disobey the law, any law.
What the IAM does demonstrate is that a safe speed will constantly vary, from some way under the limit to some way over it.
So you are saying that the IAM is lying and that they accept speeding "way over the limit" ?
Now that would be an interesting case for the ASA!<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Off thebackadam wrote:And your evidence for this is what? References please.
Apart from the ones above?
Stradling, S., Campbell, M., Allan, I., Gorell, R., Hill, J., Winter, M. and Hope, S. 2003. The Speeding Driver: Who, how and why?Research also shows that ‘those drivers who had been stopped by the police for speeding or had been flashed by
a speed camera had double the incidence of recent crash involvement’
Scottish Executive Social Research Development Department Research Programme Research Findings 170/2003.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/fin ... 170-00.asp
Would that do?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0
