[OT] Speeding motorist - "It's unfair"

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:14:20 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Tim Woodall <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The original "anger"

news.bbc.co.uk3052856.stmOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

[speeder] "An honest, law-abiding pensioner

Someone who drives at 39mph in a 30mph zone is patently not law-abiding. He may have convinced
himself that he is law-abiding, but in reality he is a minor criminal.

Quoted message said:

"In doing so, he unwittingly may have strayed over the speed limit

That is not an excuse AFAIK.

Quoted message said:

by a few mph

The definition of "a few" might stretch to five, but not nine.

He was driving at 30% over the speed limit.

We also know from TRL the difference between 40mph and 30mph in terms of the likely outcome for
those hit by motorists.

Quoted message said:

for a very brief period.

That we don't know.

Quoted message said:

"The police answer is to threaten him with court proceedings,

Glad to hear it.

Quoted message said:

a maximum fine of £1,000 and penalty points

That is about the size of it. Note the disparity between the maximum fine and the one the
Magistrate imposed.

Quoted message said:

unless he pays them £60

Which goes into a fund for paying for speed camera maintenance and more speed cameras. An excellent
use of the money. It does not go into something like the Chief Constable's Christmas Party Fund,
despite implications that this is what happens.

Quoted message said:

and then prosecute him in court,

That is the CPS.

Quoted message said:

take away a chunk of his pension

I'm fascinated to know how the police or the CPS did this.

I doubt if £90 will make much impact on the pension of a retired bank manager.

Quoted message said:

and make him out for all to see as a bad and dangerous driver,

That appears to be the opinion of the police.

Quoted message said:

and a convicted offender.

That is a fact. There is no making this out.

Quoted message said:

news.bbc.co.uk3105751.stmOpen ↗

But the police have now hit back.

I am glad they have done so. It is good to see the police behaving sensibly for once.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[speeder] "An honest, law-abiding pensioner

Someone who drives at 39mph in a 30mph zone is patently not law-abiding.

Absolutely. The U-shaped curve puts him in a zone of significantly increased risk of crashing - that
is not safe driving. There is, after all, no law which says that if a vehicle is going slower than
you want to, you must overtake.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"In doing so, he unwittingly may have strayed over the speed limit

That is not an excuse AFAIK.

You don't "stray over the speed limit" by a third.

Quoted message said:

I doubt if £90 will make much impact on the pension of a retired bank manager.

Especially one who can afford a rather nice-looking car...

Bad News: link to bugger-safe-lets-speed.org.uk on the report. I suggest a campaign of feedback to
the BBC drawing attention to the "who's vulnerable" thread and the 12mph page (mirrored with
comments at my site if you want to see it now it's been laughed off the web). I think there is no
room for doubt: our friend in the North is not a road safety campaigner, just a garden-variety
speeding apologist.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

Tim Woodall wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Clearly, not only do cameras have no discretion, which is obviously unfair to speeders, but even
the police can't tell the difference between good and bad drivers.

I disagree with Tim's implied irony. Although I am a keen cyclist, I am also a motorist ("cager"😉,
motor-cyclist (don't know what the perjorative term for one of those is), horse-rider, walker, and
have even roller- bladed on the public carriageway on quiet lanes in Germany, so I have no
particular axe to grind. But from my own observations, travelling typically 120 miles every day
(mainly motorway but including country lanes, residential streets and so on), the police are
perfectly happy to tolerate speeding when it is (a) not excessive, and (b) not accompanied by
dangerous driving. Motorway users who signal, practice lane discipline, use their mirrors and so on,
are almost never pulled over unless their speed becomes truly excessive (in excess of, say, 90 miles
per hour). But motorists who hog the outside lane, flash everyone who dares to impede their
progress, and carve up more law-abiding motorists who are trying to stick to the speed limit, can be
and are pulled up when they are spotted. And to my mind, this is just as it should be : speed is not
of itself dangerous, but when it is /accompanied/ by dangerous driving, can and should be stopped
and punished.

And (a slight digression), I would like to commend 99.9% of the motorists in the New Forest, where
my wife and I were cycling two weekends ago : almost without exception, they would wait for a
cyclist who was ahead of them to wave them through, rather than just blindly barging past as happens
only too often around outer London.

Philip Taylor

How *dreadfully* unfair! Kinetic energy @ 39mph is only 69% more than at 30mph.

AAAAhhhh!

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

"Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a3399d5dbefc13c4e781ed5cddad7b22@TeraNews...

Quoted message said:

speed is not of itself dangerous

Speeding, however, is. There is a large and growing body of evidence saying that (a) driving at
significantly above the median speed for a road is associated with greater risk of crashing
(significant being 15-20% or more);
(b) those who have several speeding convictions are also more likely to have been involved in
crashes; (c) probability of fatality rises roughly with the fourth power of impact speed -
and so on.

Speeding is dangerous, and suggesting it isn't is one of the more dangerous pieces of self-delusion
we practice when we drive.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

Just zis Guy said:

"Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a3399d5dbefc13c4e781ed5cddad7b22@TeraNews...

Quoted message said:

speed is not of itself dangerous

Speeding, however, is. There is a large and growing body of evidence saying that (a) driving at
significantly above the median speed for a road is associated with greater risk of crashing
(significant being 15-20% or more);

I would completely agree with this; it is the /median/ speed which is important, not an arbitrary
figure set by a local authority and/or the police. If you travel south on the M3 when traffic is not
excessively heavy, the median speeds for the three lanes will be close to 75, 85 and 95
respectively. By selecting the appropriate lane, and by matching your own speed to that of the
prevailing traffic, you will do far more for road safety that by blindly following a "<= 70 : good ;

Quoted message said:

70 bad" rule.

Quoted message said:

(b) those who have several speeding convictions are also more likely to have been involved in
crashes;

Yes, I don't dispute that for one instant, but not does it conflict with my earlier assertion that
(using your terminology) those who have several speeding convictions probably tend to drive
dangerously as well as speed.

(c) probability of fatality rises roughly with the

Quoted message said:

fourth power of impact speed - and so on.

Certain as /a/ power of impact speed : not certain I would agree with the fourth powet without doing
a little more research.

Quoted message said:

Speeding is dangerous, and suggesting it isn't is one of the more dangerous pieces of
self-delusion we practice when we drive.

The problem is, "speeding" is open to interpretation. If you mean "exceeding the statutory limit",
then I disagree (for reasons which I will return to below); if you mean "driving significantly
faster than the median speed for the road/lane which you are using", then I would agree.

There are two reasons why I disagree with the first interpretation :

1) speed limits are arbitrary : German autobahns are little different to our own motorways, yet
unless posted to the contrary, there is no speed limit on them. Thus speeds which are legal in
Germany are illegal in this country : that is illogical.

2) speed limits should be seen as guidance, not rule : if I drive down even a four-lane road near my
home, with cars parked both sides, I try to keep my speed down to 20 mph or so -- reason : it is
a residential area, with all the accompanying risks of children, pets, etc, suddenly appearing
between the parked cars. Where that same road narrows to two lanes, yet ceases to run through a
residential area, I frequently increase my speed to 30 or more : even 40 if the road is
completely clear and visibility excellent. Yet the limit for this road is 30 mph throughout : the
local authority make no distinction between residential and semi-rural stretches.

** Phil.

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How *dreadfully* unfair! Kinetic energy @ 39mph is only 69% more than at 30mph.

I would have guessed it as 1.3 times more (ie 30%), but it's about 30 years since I did physics!

In "]news:[email hidden],

Quoted message said:

Speeding is dangerous, and suggesting it isn't is one of the more dangerous pieces of
self-delusion we practice

For further illumination on this topic see thread "Record Speed"

(;-)

pk

"Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:d72cdaeffc44552811057a57de964856@TeraNews...

Quoted message said:

I would completely agree with this; it is the /median/ speed which is important, not an arbitrary
figure set by a local authority and/or the police. If you travel south on the M3 when traffic is
not excessively heavy, the median speeds for the three lanes will be close to 75, 85 and 95
respectively.

That seems a lot more than most m-ways! I'd say more like 60/70/80

In "]news:[email hidden], Helen Deborah Vecht <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

How *dreadfully* unfair! Kinetic energy @ 39mph is only 69% more than at 30mph.

And cycling through a red light is infinitely more dangerous to pedestrians and other cyclists than
stopping at a red light.

Form a post of mine a short while ago:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm a cyclist (and driver) I was alomost knocked off my bike on wednesday

evening. I was turning right out of a traffic light protected T_junction when i was almost hit by a
cyclist going striaght across the T ignoring the red light - I had to take evasive action to avoid
the errant cyclist and the car following me out of the junction, the f**kwit cyclist ignored me and
carried on<<

If cyclists want to make a song and dance about motorists breaking the law then more cyclists need
to obey the law themselves and many that I observe, while cycling myself, need to pay more heed to
the safety of other road users of all types.

pk

Adrian Boliston said:

"Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you travel south on the M3 when traffic is not excessively heavy, the median speeds for the
three lanes will be close to 75, 85 and 95 respectively.

That seems a lot more than most m-ways! I'd say more like 60/70/80

I agree, which is why I specifically cited the M3; it does seems to support a very high average
speed southbound from the M25.

** Phil.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a3399d5dbefc13c4e781ed5cddad7b22@TeraNews...

Quoted message said:

speed is not of itself dangerous

Speeding, however, is.

No, it is not.

Driving at 70mph on a motorway is neither speeding nor dangerous. If I now stick up a 30mph sign
there, clearly driving at 70mph would be speeding, but how would it suddenly have become more
dangerous? If the only answer is due to the relative speed differential to the other cars then the
speed limit itself has caused the danger, nothing to do with the road, the car or the driver.

If I then drive in Germany at the same speed I am causing danger by going to slowly on their
autobahn. If I drive in the US, I cause havoc by massively speeding, despite the much wider roaders
and clearance room. Clearly "speeding = dangerous" is far from the truth.

I have no doubt that increased speed is a factor in making many accidents worse, but it would seem
to be the main factor in the cause of only a handful of accidents. A quick survey of any road I see
in the morning suggests that the vast majority of people are "speeding" (following the speed of the
surrounding traffic). Speeding will then automatically be a factor in every accident. To equate that
with speed being the cause of the accident is just misrepresentation of the data to justify yet more
speed cameras and reduce the number of traffic police. The speed cameras further promote dangerour
driving (slow down to pass them, speed up more to recover the time afterwards - like it or not, we
all see it happen), whereas the police can at least judge what truly is dangerous or not and punish
(financially educate) more appropriately.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
newsfeed.comnewsfeed.comOpen ↗ The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19
East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Adrian Boliston said:

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How *dreadfully* unfair! Kinetic energy @ 39mph is only 69% more than at 30mph.

I would have guessed it as 1.3 times more (ie 30%), but it's about 30 years since I did physics!

Afraid Not K.E = 1/2 m v^2 , which means car twice as heavy, double the K.E. car twice as fast four
times the K.E

Not a nice equation for Pedestrians or Cyclists

--
Michael Kent

There are only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary,... and those that
don't Remove Shaggy's best friend to reply

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Adrian" == Adrian Boliston <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How *dreadfully* unfair! Kinetic energy @ 39mph is only 69% more than at 30mph.

Quoted message said:

I would have guessed it as 1.3 times more (ie 30%), but it's about 30 years since I did
physics!

It's a long time since I did it too... but 0.5mv^2 is floating around somewhere in my brain so the
ratio of energies is 39^2/30^2 or
1521/900 or 1.69.

So 69% extra seems correct to me.

Tim Woodall said:

news.bbc.co.uk3105751.stmOpen ↗

But the police have now hit back. "Video of the moment when he was caught in his BMW was shown at
the news conference, and reporters were handed 31 photographs of the sequence"

I can't find the video or photos on the BBC site.

No, I can't find it anywhere either. If anyone comes across them, please do post a link.

However, I did find news.bbc.co.uk3015262.stmOpen ↗ which is
heartening. Not only is this a motorist caught by speed camera saying 'it's a fair cop', that it
taught him a lesson, and that he hopes it catches lots of others and does the same to them, but it
seems to be that even rarer thing - a honest politician.

Almost restores my faith in humanity.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

I got six points on my license. It had been clean for eighteen years and I got the six points in the
space of two months !!! I say I deserved it. I got caught doing 80 in a 70 and 52 in a 40.

People may say, 80 is not that much more than 70 - you unlucky thing !! I say, if you offered 80 for
an house and it is worth only 70 would you apply the same principle? Poor thing!!

We all know how fast 30mph can be on a bike. Imagine 80mph. Now imagine 80mph and cocooned in a one
ton steel box. Now imagine hitting a brick wall or a stationary car/tractor at that speed in that
box. Not nice.

No excuses. Speed kills.

"Tim Woodall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The original "anger"

news.bbc.co.uk3052856.stmOpen ↗

"He [the speeder] said the case had nothing to do with road safety as he had completed the
manoeuvre in total safety ... raise money through fines ..."

What is interesting about this one is that the police have it on camera.

news.bbc.co.uk3105751.stmOpen ↗

But the police have now hit back. "Video of the moment when he was caught in his BMW was shown at
the news conference, and reporters were handed 31 photographs of the sequence"

I can't find the video or photos on the BBC site.

Two other quotes. "... he [the speeder] said the chief constable must be desperate to make such a
fuss over such a trivial case."

"Mr Shaw [the speeder] was upset that the chief constable suggested he was driving dangerously,
when he said he obviously was not."

Clearly, not only do cameras have no discretion, which is obviously unfair to speeders, but even
the police can't tell the difference between good and bad drivers.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

tjw.hn.orgtjw.hn.orgOpen ↗ locofungus.btinternet.co.uklocofungus.btinternet.co.ukOpen ↗

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

speed is not of itself dangerous

Speeding, however, is. There is a large and growing body of evidence saying that (a) driving at
significantly above the median speed for a road is associated with greater risk of crashing
(significant being 15-20% or more); ........ Speeding is dangerous, and suggesting it isn't is one
of the more dangerous pieces of self-delusion we practice when we drive.

Guy, Take a look at the 'Record speed' thread. A lot of cyclists (not including you, I accept)
bragging about speed. Not one post querying the safety aspect of the claims, especially with regard
to the dangers to other road users. Mind you, as cyclists can't be charged with speeding, perhaps
it doesn't matter? I won't defend speeding motorists, but I dislike the hypocrisy of some of my
fellow cyclists.

Robin

RobinT said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

speed is not of itself dangerous

Speeding, however, is. There is a large and growing body of evidence saying that (a) driving at
significantly above the median speed for a road is associated with greater risk of crashing
(significant being 15-20% or more); ........ Speeding is dangerous, and suggesting it isn't is one
of the more dangerous pieces of self-delusion we practice when we drive.

Guy, Take a look at the 'Record speed' thread. A lot of cyclists (not including you, I accept)
bragging about speed. Not one post querying the safety aspect of the claims, especially with
regard to the dangers to other road users. Mind you, as cyclists can't be charged with speeding,
perhaps it doesn't matter? I won't defend speeding motorists, but I dislike the hypocrisy of some
of my fellow cyclists.

Robin

Um, there have been concerns voiced about the speed/safety, actually. At least by myself and
another. Concerning our versions of high speed, admittedly, and not that of the others posting much
higher speeds - but I've yet to exceed a speed limit, and suspect I'll be incapable of doing so for
quite a while yet, even if I wanted to. It's quite possible (I've not been looking at the url's
posted) that the speeds quoted were done on roads that allowed that speed, so they'd not be
breaking the law in that respect. Whilst it might be dangerous to themselves if they're doing it
down a road with side junctions (given the ability of other road users to fail to see cyclists
sometimes, or expect them to be going that fast) it still doesn't make it illegal, even if somewhat
unwise, perhaps.

Velvet

Philip TAYLOR PC87S/O-XP said:

Quoted message said:

Speeding, however, is. There is a large and growing body of evidence saying that (a) driving at
significantly above the median speed for a road is associated with greater risk of crashing
(significant being 15-20% or more);

Quoted message said:

I would completely agree with this; it is the /median/ speed which is important, not an arbitrary
figure set by a local authority

Median speed on a 30mph road is about 30mph, on a motorway it's a shade under 60. Speed limits are
there for a reason, and the motor lobby fought tooth and nail against their introduction. The reason
is that left to their own devices motorists rouutinely drive too fast for the conditions, partly
because they overestimate their own skill and partly because while the benefit of driving fast
accrues entirely to the driver the risk is distributed among other road users, so the cost / benefit
from the motorist's standpoint comes out strongly in favourt of driving fast.

Quoted message said:

police. If you travel south on the M3 when traffic is not excessively heavy,

About 3am from my experience, and the median speed in my lane was 135 back then. I don't do
that any more.

Quoted message said:

By selecting the appropriate lane, and by matching your own speed to that of the prevailing
traffic, you will do far more for road safety that by blindly following a "<= 70 : good ; > 70
bad" rule.

And by obeying the speed limit so all the lanes are under 70 the total level of danger is reduced,
for the simple and obvious reason that KE
= 1/2 mv^2. You also increase the effective capacity of the road;
optimum capacity is around the 60 mark from memory.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(b) those who have several speeding convictions are also more likely to have been involved in
crashes;

Quoted message said:

Yes, I don't dispute that for one instant, but not does it conflict with my earlier assertion that
(using your terminology) those who have several speeding convictions probably tend to drive
dangerously as well as speed.

But it does undermine the assertion that speed cameras are not targeting dangerous drivers - they
may not detect dangerous /driving/ (that would require my new patent Twatso[TM] camera) but they
plainly do detect dangerous /drivers/.

Quoted message said:

(c) probability of fatality rises roughly with the

Quoted message said:

fourth power of impact speed - and so on.

Quoted message said:

Certain as /a/ power of impact speed : not certain I would agree with the fourth powet without
doing a little more research.

Luckily Joksch has already done it for us and revealed that the power is 4 ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Speeding is dangerous, and suggesting it isn't is one of the more dangerous pieces of
self-delusion we practice when we drive.

Quoted message said:

The problem is, "speeding" is open to interpretation.

Not according to the Road Traffic Act...

Quoted message said:

If you mean "exceeding the statutory limit", then I disagree

Evidently, but the evidence is against you.

Quoted message said:

There are two reasons why I disagree with the first interpretation :

Quoted message said:

1) speed limits are arbitrary : German autobahns are little different to our own motorways, yet
unless posted to the contrary, there is no speed limit on them.

They also have higher fatal accident rates. Across a wide range of countries and sites, reduction of
average vehicle speeds results in a reduction in fatal serious injury crashes.

Quoted message said:

2) speed limits should be seen as guidance, not rule

Absolutely not. I am entirely in favour of less arbitrary mechanisms for setting limits, but I can't
imagine anything more dangerous than allowing drivers to decide to drive faster than the limit -
remember, most drivers overstimate their own skill, and while all the benefit of going fast accrues
to the driver much of the danger accrues to others. This flaw was recognised when mandatory speed
limits were introduced, and it hasn't changed.

Quoted message said:

the local authority make no distinction between residential and semi-rural stretches.

I could name areas where speed limits are equally arbitrary, but I still observe them.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ New!
Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!