Caught Speeding

[Smokin Joe]

Bear in mind that there are two types of signs over the gantry. If they round with the red circle on the outside then it is a compulsory speed limit. On the other hand, if it is only the yellow sign, then it is only advisory.

Similar to a sign with a black border as opposed to red.

 

[mjr]

Except they are. I know that's the theory, but it's not born out by my experience. If that was the case (as it sometimes is - it generally seems to work pretty well on the M25, eg) I'd have no problem with it. In my experience, 9 times out of ten, drivers pretty much entirely disregard them, and carry on at 70 to find the road ahead as clear as if there'd been no flashers at all. No braking & accelerating, no travelling slower.

Most limits are set slightly lower than the theory requires if everyone obeyed them, in order to stop the jam being perpetuated by the few anti-social nobbers who continue at 70 - so basically, all of us who obey the limit get penalised for their speeding. That's the wrong way round IMO and should be changed.

Doesn't this rely on everybody's cooperation though? If everybody slows down it's faster for all, even though it's still quicker for a speeding individual. I'm not convinced people are that community minded.

I'm sure that enough are anti-social to cause problems, so I support wider use of red-ring limits, instantaneous speed cameras, average speed cameras and penalties.

a mobile camera zapped me doing 57 in a 50 limit on the Snake Pass. I was at the bottom end of the 10% + 2 and chose the course. My case was one of a fallible human being having a momentary lapse in concentration, not one of recklessness.

Sorry but what the fark were you concentrating on instead of driving?

But a massive fine and loss of licence, and possibly job would be hugely disproportionate and would wholly ignore previous good driving conduct.

What's hugely disproportionate is all the extra death and destruction caused by excess speed. It should be stopped, shouldn't it?

Is it really previous good driving conduct, or merely not getting caught because of how little enforcement there is now? Maybe not complete loss of licence, but there's a good argument for short bans IMO.

Plus, let's face it, as Drago says, it would be political suicide so isn't going to happen.

Yes, sadly I agree. I feel that everyone who excuses their incompetent motoring on the grounds that everyone does it or that it's careless not reckless needs to take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror and realise that that's the face of a potentially-homicidal motorist. If you don't care about your own life, then please care about the lives of the people who work/study, shop and travel around the roads you drive along.

 

[Roadhump]

1. Sorry but what the fark were you concentrating on instead of driving?

2. What's hugely disproportionate is all the extra death and destruction caused by excess speed. It should be stopped, shouldn't it?

3. Is it really previous good driving conduct, or merely not getting caught because of how little enforcement there is now? Maybe not complete loss of licence, but there's a good argument for short bans IMO.

1. A pious response, if you don't mind my saying. As I said, it was a momentary concentration lapse, all human beings have them, no matter how hard you try not to, and they will inevitably impair performance, that is an unavoidable fact of life, in view of which, it seems the only logical conclusion to your argument is to just ban human beings from driving cars altogether. Could you honestly claim to maintain 100% concentration 100% of the time whilst doing anything? Can you honestly say that your mind never wanders onto other things going on in your life when driving, or that you never chat to a passenger, or listen to the radio? All those things will divert some of your attention away from concentrating on your driving. It is impossible to maintain total concentration on any task, whether driving or washing the dishes, hence the points re human fallibility compared with recklessness and irresponsibility, and proportionality in sanctions.

2. Extra death and destruction being hugely disproportionate to what? Of course, we should do whatever we can to reduce it as much as possible, but speeding is not the only cause of road deaths, and speeding does not always lead to road deaths. It's a complex issue, one aspect of which must surely be that only a miniscule proportion of speeding offences result in death or injury, although I accept that is difficult to substantiate because nobody knows how many speeding transgressions go undetected, but I guess it is the vast, vast majority. Minor transgressions should in theory be less likely to cause death or injury because limits should be suitable for the type of road to which they apply, so the further above that limit the greater the danger (It seems reasonable to assume research would back that up, but I stand to be corrected if not). To suggest the same sledge hammer is used to crack every nut, regardless of its size, seems a bit rigid, unimaginative and over the top.

3. You tell me what it is. Your apparently rhetorical question implies that drivers are inherently irresponsible and only keep their licences because enforcement is rare. Some are doubtless irresponsible, some are incompetent / ignorant, but I doubt many wish to deliberately endanger people. Whilst visible police presence has declined in recent years, technology (speed cameras) has enabled far more enforcement and it seems with less discretion, hence the tales we hear of the 10% + 2 guideline not applying and people getting zapped at 32 in a 30 etc, and why speed awareness courses (SAC) are like a non stop conveyor belt of minor speeding offenders, none of whom have killed or injured anyone whilst committing the specific minor speeding offence that got them on that course.

As I said in my earlier post, I recognise the potential for ham caused by speeding and other traffic offences, but when enforcing the law or addressing poor standards anywhere else, there is a place for education as well as plain sanctions, and that is what the SAC is about. The same balance between education and sanction applies to many areas of life such as combating drug use, and workplace competence and conduct issues. For many the educational approach works, it made me more careful and no doubt many others, so why hammer those people who are likely to acknowledge their faults and endeavour to improve (despite their inherent human fallibility that means their potential for further error can never be removed)?. Looking for ways to improve combating poor driving is laudable, obviously, serious and extreme cases need a firmer. more robust approach, but banning people for occasional minor transgressions is ridiculous.

 

[TheDoctor]

You might think it's a pious response, but I'm having trouble believing in a momentary lapse of attention that saw you 14% over the speed limit at the exact same moment you passed the camera.
It's a limit. Not a target.

 

[subaqua]

You might think it's a pious response, but I'm having trouble believing in a momentary lapse of attention that saw you 14% over the speed limit at the exact same moment you passed the camera.
It's a limit. Not a target.

and if it was an average speed camera thats a long time to be not concentrating ( yes I know in this case its not )

 

[Roadhump]

You might think it's a pious response, but I'm having trouble believing in a momentary lapse of attention that saw you 14% over the speed limit at the exact same moment you passed the camera.
It's a limit. Not a target.

It was a long moment..........depending on whose definition of moment you use. I would say my momentary lapse was one of going along with the flow of traffic on a fast stretch of road whilst chatting with my passenger and not checking my speedo often enough and I got zapped, if you think that makes me terrible and I am stretching the definition, so be it, I don't care, we can agree to differ, but it misses the point anyway.

I said above that I am not trying to justify speeding, poor driving or not striving for high standards, and I take responsibility for my lapse. Disapproval of all speeding is fine with me, I am just saying that IMO each case should be judged on its merits and sanctions should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. I don't believe a draconian approach is realistic, or that it would be any more effective than what we already have.

 

[mjr]

1. A pious response, if you don't mind my saying.

I do. I try bloody hard to drive well and apparently expecting motorists to do that is regarded as "pious" and you think it's socially acceptable to call it that. I feel this is a big part of the problem. We might as well hang signs up at the ports: Britain Welcomes Careless Drivers.

Could you honestly claim to maintain 100% concentration 100% of the time whilst doing anything?

Yes but it's rare. It's sometimes called "flow" or "focus" or "in the zone" and there's a heck of a lot of people trying to figure out how to make it happen more often for more things, especially the creative arts.

Can you honestly say that your mind never wanders onto other things going on in your life when driving, or that you never chat to a passenger, or listen to the radio?

No, I can't. I'm not a natural driver (I suspect it's partly thinking too much about the mechanics of it for various reasons) so I have to concentrate on it. Sometimes I have to stop the chat with the passenger or ignore what's on the radio in order to give my undivided attention to what's happening on the road. I usually turn the radio off in towns and cities these days. And yet, my difficulty with that has never resulted in a speeding ticket and very rarely results in speeding... so I do question why it has for others and I suspect it's that you simply don't care enough for the lives of those outside the vehicle.

2. Extra death and destruction being hugely disproportionate to what? Of course, we should do whatever we can to reduce it as much as possible, but speeding is not the only cause of road deaths, and speeding does not always lead to road deaths.

Disproportionate to what it should be. Of course speeding is not the only cause, but how often does extra speed make death and injury less likely and how often more likely?

Whilst visible police presence has declined in recent years, technology (speed cameras) has enabled far more enforcement and it seems with less discretion, hence the tales we hear of the 10% + 2 guideline not applying and people getting zapped at 32 in a 30 etc, and why speed awareness courses (SAC) are like a non stop conveyor belt of minor speeding offenders, none of whom have killed or injured anyone whilst committing the specific minor speeding offence that got them on that course.

Speed cameras have been removed like they've gone out of fashion and it's taken some villagers years of struggle and some road deaths to get new ones installed. It may be different on smart motorways but we don't even have dumb motorways out here and I don't think it would be a good use of money to build them now.

And then there's the other cameras which would be beneficial: red light cameras (including bike box ones) and yellow box cameras. I've not heard of new ones of those being installed anywhere nearby in many many years.

Speed awareness courses are like a non stop conveyor belt of minor speeding offenders because they don't work. In fact, they do the opposite: people now think they can speed a little bit and they'll only have to pay to sit through a course, instead of suffer the penalty points, fine and increased insurance.

For many the educational approach works, it made me more careful and no doubt many others, so why hammer those people who are likely to acknowledge their faults and endeavour to improve (despite their inherent human fallibility that means their potential for further error can never be removed)?

Because some of those people don't acknowledge their faults and endeavour to improve - they would rather call it "pious" to expect to drive better than they do and shoot like that. I suspect that's true of most of them and sooner or later they'll be speeding again because they feel everyone does. The evidence for them that I've seen seems very weak, such as low reoffending rates within six months (what about something more realistic like five years?) and drivers claiming to have changed their attitude (well, they would say that, wouldn't they?).

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 4797922, member: 45"]You'll get the course. No points. Unless the recent changes make a difference.

I shamefully admit that despite my views on speeding, two weeks ago I did a speed awareness course.

I have no excuse. A38, 60 into a 30 with a camera. I knew it was there and I always drop my speed. This time I was deep in conversation with someone (distracted) and realised I was in the 30 zone as I crossed the white camera lines. I was clocked at 41.

The course is pretty good. The stats about the difference in braking distance and potential injury with little speed increase is a sober reminder, and the time difference given for letting people out in front of you on the motorway as opposed to keeping your speed makes you realise how pointless it all is.

Now I drive with the speed limiter or cruise on.[/QUOTE]
I had to endure a conversation on the unfairness, ineffectiveness, and general waste-of-space-ery of speed awareness courses from a total nobber-driver of my acquaintance a couple of weekends ago. That we were both riding bikes at the time was utterly and completely wasted on him. As was the course, of course.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Not really, there were no changes in road width, street light distance did not change, there was continuity of housing etc with no change from the promulgate 40 mph a few yards earlier, no junctions, no roundabout approach, no Schools or similar.

No real indication that there should be a change

Very common in Hampshire ime.

 

[TheDoctor]

Drivers had to keep within the speed limit when passing the driving test.
If, after years of experience, they are incapable of doing so now, then get trained again or get off the road.
I have no patience with whines like 'momentary lapse of attention'.
Car's don't accelerate by themselves.

 

[mjr]

Drivers had to keep within the speed limit when passing the driving test.

When? When I passed twenty years ago, exceeding the speed limit slightly was a minor fault, but so was not doing the speed limit (so-called "not making progress"), as I know because I was faulted for both.

 

[swansonj]

Several people keep making the same valid point and several other people keep ignoring it!

It is perfectly possible to keep within the speed limit if one cares enough. We mostly do it on our driving tests (@TheDoctor). Policemen who know they will face disciplinary action do it (@Drago ). Airline pilots comply with their equivalents with a much higher success rate.

So when we do not stick to speed limits, it is because we have chosen not to do so. Not chosen deliberately to break a specific speed limit, but chosen to drive with a lesser level of concentration than we are capable of, because we have decided that this is a law we don't mind if we break.

 

[Drago]

Its very easy to do. If you don't have your Eminem choons pumping from your 8 track at max volume then your brain will very accurately and completely subliminally keep you at the correct speed from engine tone alone, negating the need to look at the speedo more than the occasional glance.

Electric car drivers may have a harder time, but they all have HUD options for that reason. Indeed, you you're one of those people prone to momentary lapses you can buy HUD kits that plug into the OBD socket for under £50.

 

[Profpointy]

You never hear anyone saying how a momentary lapse in concentration caused them to be driving too slowly.

I know people who failed their driving test for that. And I've driven for a while at (say) 40 then spotted it's now a 50

 

[KneesUp]

[QUOTE 4798947, member: 45"]I'm eternally grateful (and slightly staggered) that nothing bad happened as a consequence of my teenage driving.[/QUOTE]
Same here. Even the time I ragged my mum's 205 flat out down a twisty downhill residential road, and told the officers who stopped me that my excessive speed was due to having been at my girlfriend's house but that I had to have my mum's car back by midnight. (Rather than telling them that it was because normally I drove down there sensibly and got a taxi millimetres from the bumper, and I actually saw them turn in, and thought their white 'Police' light was a taxi sign so was actually trying to loose them.) I assume the fact that there were no straight bits to clock me on saved me. They followed me the remaining mile home. I did not exceed 30mph. Looking back I'm surprised they didn't breathalise me - not that I'd drunk anything.

I had 3 points once, for speeding on a motorway. I was doing over 90 according to the car (M1, straight, dry, empty, flat, car capable of much more blah blah) but I only got a £60 fine and 3 points. Again I saw the bloody police car - it was dealing with an incident on the slip road, and I was in a hurry - "they'll be there for a while, so I guess this section is going to be patrol-car free" I thought - but they had just finished with the guy on the slip road. Those old police Omegas were quite fast, and quite comfy in the back. I didn't enjoy the chat though.

Having been caught twice when I'd seen the actual police car that stopped me, I'm now very careful.