A tougher line on speeding?

[pwa]

Last night I was driving along the inside lane of a 70mph dual carriageway in the Port Talbot area. Just about here.https://www.google.com/maps/@51.622502, ... 6?hl=en-GB
It was dark so in the mirrors the information I was getting about traffic passing in the outside lane was just a view of their lights. I was doing about 50, possibly 55. A car zoomed past at what seemed to me to be over 100. I was completely unready for it. So was a car up ahead that was pulling out into the outside lane, unaware that anything was approaching so fast. The speeding car's brake lights went on as the driver braked hard. Somebody could have died. An average speed check would stop that happening there. But that costs money. If we want to stop dangerous driving we will have to pay for that to happen. Otherwise we will just settle for catching people who have slipped a bit over the limit and get a lot more people charged with very little extra safety resulting.

Thinking aloud, double all speeding fines, the additional 100% being earmarked for speed detector equipment installation/operation.

I agree that "If we want to stop dangerous driving we will have to pay for that to happen" but by doubling fines it will be those creating the need for the speed detectors that are making at least a decent contribution towards paying for it.

Ian

Simpler than that, allow police forces to use revenue from fines to fund road safety measures, including the stuff you mention. At the moment they don't get that money so speed detection is a cost they have to weigh against the other duties they have.

[thirdcrank]

Ecuse the clip-clop of hooves while I trot out a hobby horse.

IMO it's a pity that speed merchants are allowed to dictate the agenda when it seems obvious to me that better overall progress is generally made if rules are followed, which means enforcement to ensure compliance.

Without wanting to turn this into an RLJ thread, my young grandchildren all understand that traffic lights share precious road space and need everybody to take their turn. Unfortunately, to accommodate the greedy people who grab more than their share by ignoring the stop phases - anything other than green - the "intergreens" when nobody can legally go, are gradually lengthened, increasing the temptation to ignore the lights and the reward for doing so. I find it surprising that so many people cannot understand that prolonged intergreens inevitably reduce the amount of time to be shared: a smaller cake. Strict camera enforcement is now technically feasible and only political considerations prevent it. IMO, time to hand this lock-stock-and-barrel to local highway authorities who seem relaxed about cash-cow allegations and who have a vested interest in keeping traffic moving.

The same considerations apply to a lot of speed limits. One that I think all but the most ignorant of drivers understand is that driving too fast for the circumstances - tailgating being one example - can cause long delays, even when there's no crash. A tailgater only need ease off the accelerator at motorway speeds for people a few vehicles behind to be doing emergency stops. A moving vehicle "occupies" not only the bit of road its wheels are on, but the road in front which forms its stopping distance, which increases according to speed. Two vehicles cannot safely occupy the same space at once. (I do know about lane-hoggers but tacit acceptance of tail-gaters is hardly a solution.)

The relevance of this to safety, especially on "built-up" roads is that vulnerable road users - or their carers if they are particularly vulnerable, especially children - know they are in danger if they enter the space occupied by a moving vehicle. There has to be a compromise, of course, or traffic would remain stationary, but at the moment the onus is on the vulnerable user to "keep out of the road." And the faster the vehicle speed, not only is the occupied space greater, it's known to be harder to estimate accurately, while the results of getting it wrong can be fatal - and tend to be described by the surviving culprits and their apologists as "suicidal."

[pwa]

One obvious and totally non-controversial measure that a bit of money would enable is wider installation of those speed indicator things that flash up your speed as you pass. They work for me. They make me think about speed, if I'm not thinking about it already. Often they just assure me that I'm getting it right. But overall they get me in the groove, thinking about my speed. And that, surely, is the objective. Getting people to adjust their speed downwards when they have gone a bit over. We all want that.

[thirdcrank]

One obvious and totally non-controversial measure that a bit of money would enable is wider installation of those speed indicator things that flash up your speed as you pass. They work for me. They make me think about speed, if I'm not thinking about it already. Often they just assure me that I'm getting it right. But overall they get me in the groove, thinking about my speed. And that, surely, is the objective. Getting people to adjust their speed downwards when they have gone a bit over. We all want that.

My feeling is that they work with people who more or less comply and stray a bit over. Useless for those who believe they will escape punishment at any speed.

We've had one near here for a while on the "with priority" approach to a road narrowing, all in a 20mph zone. During much of the day, it's the weight of traffic which keeps speeds down but at quiet times it just seems to aggravate the competition as many of those with priority try to enforce it, and those without priority feel encouraged to sneak through without giving way.

[reohn2]

One obvious and totally non-controversial measure that a bit of money would enable is wider installation of those speed indicator things that flash up your speed as you pass. They work for me. They make me think about speed, if I'm not thinking about it already. Often they just assure me that I'm getting it right. But overall they get me in the groove, thinking about my speed. And that, surely, is the objective. Getting people to adjust their speed downwards when they have gone a bit over. We all want that.

My feeling is that they work with people who more or less comply and stray a bit over. Useless for those who believe they will escape punishment at any speed.

We've had one near here for a while on the "with priority" approach to a road narrowing, all in a 20mph zone. During much of the day, it's the weight of traffic which keeps speeds down but at quiet times it just seems to aggravate the competition as many of those with priority try to enforce it, and those without priority feel encouraged to sneak through without giving way.

We also have a speed indicator on 20 limit on a built up section.The number of cars that catch me up as I reduce speed from the 30 limit to 20 can be as many as four behind me,all in the space 400m.
So yes I agree they work for them that intend to comply,for the rest they're just an number displayed on a board

[Psamathe]

Slightly relevant report (though not directly about speeding)

Number of drivers prosecuted for using a mobile phone at the wheel plummets amid 'decline in traffic officers'
...
Figures published by the Ministry of Justice show the number of offenders convicted of “using or causing others to use a handheld mobile phone while driving” fell by nearly half between 2012 and 2016 – from 22,135 to 11,961.

The RAC linked the drop in convictions in England and Wales with a fall in the number of traffic officers operating on the roads.

A Freedom of Information request last year found the number of traffic officers had fallen by a third in 10 years, from 3,766 in 2007 to 2,643 in 2017.
.....

Ian

[Bonefishblues]

Slightly relevant report (though not directly about speeding)

Number of drivers prosecuted for using a mobile phone at the wheel plummets amid 'decline in traffic officers'
...
Figures published by the Ministry of Justice show the number of offenders convicted of “using or causing others to use a handheld mobile phone while driving” fell by nearly half between 2012 and 2016 – from 22,135 to 11,961.

The RAC linked the drop in convictions in England and Wales with a fall in the number of traffic officers operating on the roads.

A Freedom of Information request last year found the number of traffic officers had fallen by a third in 10 years, from 3,766 in 2007 to 2,643 in 2017.
.....

Ian

So the drop isn't wholly attributable to the undoubted reduction in trafpol. Once again, in cracked record mode, this behaviour is reducing, and rapidly IMHO.

[thirdcrank]

Variations in levels of prosecutions for road traffic offences have been affected by more factors than the numbers of specialist traffic officers (ie police officers identified by a white top on their caps, who are advanced drivers with specialist training, and driving patrol cars with calibrated speedo's etc.)

Once upon a time, dealing with traffic offences was the bread-and-butter of the uniform patrol PC who, around here at least, dealt with everything that didn't require a calibrated speedo or technical qualifications to be able to examine vehicles, tachographs etc.

Some trends are easily explained: eg the collapse in careless driving prosecutions is directly linked to a policy of not investigating most crashes, which were the basis for most prosecutions for due care. OTOH, most speeding is now detected with things like speed cameras, rather than patrol cars following for a distance with the crew checking the speed (that still happens, but proportionately less.) A simple headcount of traffic officers does not take into account that they are likely to be given any duties which involve the slightest amount of operational driving, rather than using a motor vehicle to get from A to B.

[mjr]

One obvious and totally non-controversial measure that a bit of money would enable is wider installation of those speed indicator things that flash up your speed as you pass. They work for me. They make me think about speed, if I'm not thinking about it already. Often they just assure me that I'm getting it right. But overall they get me in the groove, thinking about my speed. And that, surely, is the objective. Getting people to adjust their speed downwards when they have gone a bit over. We all want that.

They're a waste of money! We've got one on my road. You can't walk past without it flashing at some motorist. As I mentioned before, the average speed was measured at 38.5mph (40 limit) despite twice daily queues. There's plenty of people going a lot over 40 and the vast majority at least slightly over. Zero tolerance cameras would rake it in and then people would slow down, there'd be fewer collisions and it'd flow better and queue less.

[pwa]

One obvious and totally non-controversial measure that a bit of money would enable is wider installation of those speed indicator things that flash up your speed as you pass. They work for me. They make me think about speed, if I'm not thinking about it already. Often they just assure me that I'm getting it right. But overall they get me in the groove, thinking about my speed. And that, surely, is the objective. Getting people to adjust their speed downwards when they have gone a bit over. We all want that.

They're a waste of money! We've got one on my road. You can't walk past without it flashing at some motorist. As I mentioned before, the average speed was measured at 38.5mph (40 limit) despite twice daily queues. There's plenty of people going a lot over 40 and the vast majority at least slightly over. Zero tolerance cameras would rake it in and then people would slow down, there'd be fewer collisions and it'd flow better and queue less.

You know best the situation in your own locality, so I won't question that, but the OP was specifically about clamping down on people caught doing just a little over the limit. So we are not really talking about those who would already be booked for doing, say, 35 or more in a 30 zone. We are talking about those who creep over by a couple of mph. I count myself as one of those. I expect all the drivers on this Forum are, occasionally. And as one of those, I do find the numbers flashing at me helpful. I have no idea whether or not I represent a small or a large part of "offenders" in that, but they work for me. Sometimes I see a red 32 flash and my foot eases off the accelerator. Sometimes I see 28 and I think "don't let it creep up". Only a sample of one, I know.

[Bonefishblues]

One obvious and totally non-controversial measure that a bit of money would enable is wider installation of those speed indicator things that flash up your speed as you pass. They work for me. They make me think about speed, if I'm not thinking about it already. Often they just assure me that I'm getting it right. But overall they get me in the groove, thinking about my speed. And that, surely, is the objective. Getting people to adjust their speed downwards when they have gone a bit over. We all want that.

They're a waste of money! We've got one on my road. You can't walk past without it flashing at some motorist. As I mentioned before, the average speed was measured at 38.5mph (40 limit) despite twice daily queues. There's plenty of people going a lot over 40 and the vast majority at least slightly over. Zero tolerance cameras would rake it in and then people would slow down, there'd be fewer collisions and it'd flow better and queue less.

You know best the situation in your own locality, so I won't question that, but the OP was specifically about clamping down on people caught doing just a little over the limit. So we are not really talking about those who would already be booked for doing, say, 35 or more in a 30 zone. We are talking about those who creep over by a couple of mph. I count myself as one of those. I expect all the drivers on this Forum are, occasionally. And as one of those, I do find the numbers flashing at me helpful. I have no idea whether or not I represent a small or a large part of "offenders" in that, but they work for me. Sometimes I see a red 32 flash and my foot eases off the accelerator. Sometimes I see 28 and I think "don't let it creep up". Only a sample of one, I know.

I think you're pretty representative.

[Pete Owens]

You know best the situation in your own locality, so I won't question that, but the OP was specifically about clamping down on people caught doing just a little over the limit. So we are not really talking about those who would already be booked for doing, say, 35 or more in a 30 zone. We are talking about those who creep over by a couple of mph. I count myself as one of those

And the law is there to protect us from criminals such as yourself.
It is those of us that bear the danger you cause want the law enforced while those who make a habit of breaking the law would prefer the police to turn a blind eye.

[reohn2]

Speaks the one without spot or blemish,a perfect state of mind and being must be wonderful attainment..........

[mjr]

They're a waste of money! We've got one on my road. You can't walk past without it flashing at some motorist. As I mentioned before, the average speed was measured at 38.5mph (40 limit) despite twice daily queues. There's plenty of people going a lot over 40 and the vast majority at least slightly over. Zero tolerance cameras would rake it in and then people would slow down, there'd be fewer collisions and it'd flow better and queue less.

You know best the situation in your own locality, so I won't question that, but the OP was specifically about clamping down on people caught doing just a little over the limit. So we are not really talking about those who would already be booked for doing, say, 35 or more in a 30 zone. We are talking about those who creep over by a couple of mph. I count myself as one of those. I expect all the drivers on this Forum are, occasionally. And as one of those, I do find the numbers flashing at me helpful. I have no idea whether or not I represent a small or a large part of "offenders" in that, but they work for me. Sometimes I see a red 32 flash and my foot eases off the accelerator. Sometimes I see 28 and I think "don't let it creep up". Only a sample of one, I know.

I think you're pretty representative.

Pretty representative in that the sign doesn't work and pwa still sometimes speeds up to it. These signs seem to be mostly away from junctions and houses, which I suspect is so as not to distract drivers from other hazards. They seem like a lot of cost for the tiny benefit of some slight speeders slowing down in a low-hazard point. Put cameras up and fine them - at least that shouldn't be a net cost.

[pwa]

You know best the situation in your own locality, so I won't question that, but the OP was specifically about clamping down on people caught doing just a little over the limit. So we are not really talking about those who would already be booked for doing, say, 35 or more in a 30 zone. We are talking about those who creep over by a couple of mph. I count myself as one of those

And the law is there to protect us from criminals such as yourself.
It is those of us that bear the danger you cause want the law enforced while those who make a habit of breaking the law would prefer the police to turn a blind eye.

I presume you don't drive because if you did, like every other driver who has ever driven you would have crept over a limit from time to time, but you can't be a driver because then your finger pointing would make you a hypocrite.