A tougher line on speeding?

[thirdcrank]

For those who missed it, Anthony Bangham has replaced Suzette Davenport as Roads Policing lead for the National Police Chiefs' Council (ACPO as was.)

He's set a cat among the pigeons by suggesting a much tougher line on speeding. With apologies for the link to the Daily Mail, it's the place where a lot of the complaining is concentrated. The story has been carried by most papers for anybody who wants to read it elsewhere

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eding.html

The strange thing is the audience to which he addressed his speech, the Police Federation roads policing conference. While it may seem normal for him to speak to those who do the enforcing at street level, on its own this will have no significance. First, every chief constable - now with the policy guidance of their force's Police and Crime Commissioner - sets policy for their own force. Then the Police Federation is the staff organisation for the ranks from constable to chief inspector, whose members have no policy setting role.
==============================edited to remove an embarrassing typo ===================

[Cyril Haearn]

Why do you think he made the announcement at the PF conference?

Suzette Davenport wanted to crack down on speeding crime, I remember praising her here

[reohn2]

You reduce the police budget year on year,you introduce police commissioners(by demockratic process of course),then you announce the crackdown on the very criminals you gave carte blanch to by those very measures you instigated .Yeah right we believe you mister and missus politrickian,thousands wouldn't,but I have complete faith in the demockratic process and a promise of a brave new all in it together society........
The pigs are all fueled up and ready fo take off.............

[pwa]

A few Sundays back I was out driving on a few jobs and in the course of two hours I passed three speed vans, or maybe the same one in three different locations. Had I been much over the 30 limit on all three locations I could have had three letters through the post. So I'm not sure enforcement is lacking in my area.

[rickd]

A quick google suggests that 1.4 million people attended a speed awareness course in 2017. If the conviction was set at a lower margin it almost certainly follows that the detectors that caught the 1.4 million would have caught additional people - my guess is it would be quite a lot more.

[Cyril Haearn]

A few Sundays back I was out driving on a few jobs and in the course of two hours I passed three speed vans, or maybe the same one in three different locations. Had I been much over the 30 limit on all three locations I could have had three letters through the post. So I'm not sure enforcement is lacking in my area.

You could have posted that on "coincidences"
I would imagine it was the same van each time, in a very small area. In any case, safety cameras/vehicles should be hidden where possible
They are rare as hens teeth in North Wales

I was stopped for a "traffic offence" by West Merci Police once
Driving "too slowly", I am VERY proud of that but it does show their priorities
Was in 1993, mind

Never been stopped for going too fast of course

[pwa]

A few Sundays back I was out driving on a few jobs and in the course of two hours I passed three speed vans, or maybe the same one in three different locations. Had I been much over the 30 limit on all three locations I could have had three letters through the post. So I'm not sure enforcement is lacking in my area.

You could have posted that on "coincidences"
I would imagine it was the same van each time, in a very small area. In any case, safety cameras/vehicles should be hidden where possible
They are rare as hens teeth in North Wales

I was stopped for a "traffic offence" by West Mercia Police once
Going "too slowly", I am proud of that but it does show their priorities
Was in 1993, mind

The suspicion with particularly slow drivers (steady 25 mph on a designated 60mph road with no obvious hazards, for example) is that they are either drunk or visually impaired, so that is what they attract attention.

[Psamathe]

I think that given resource limitations in the Police force there does need to be prioritisation over where they target their efforts. It's difficult to generalise but I'd rather they put more effort into things like mobile phone use and close passes than somebody doing 32 in a 30 limit. Guessing but I think reading/posting to Facebook whilst driving is probably more dangerous than 2mph over the speed limit. But I'm not and expert and it becomes a complex issue where catching people 2 mph over the speed limit means you're just taking more pictures from a speed camera whereas catching more drivers on Facebook is maybe harder.

And whilst the Police have suffered cuts which is undoubtedly making things worse, there will always be resource limitations and always considerations as to where resource is best deployed.

I do worry about the crude use of "targets" by so many organisations, where they strive to "get the numbers" and public good can become less relevant.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

A few Sundays back I was out driving on a few jobs and in the course of two hours I passed three speed vans, or maybe the same one in three different locations. Had I been much over the 30 limit on all three locations I could have had three letters through the post. So I'm not sure enforcement is lacking in my area.

My reading of the reports of his speech - which may not be complete or particularly accurate, of course - was that he was saying that the threshold for enforcement should be reduced with less (no?) waggleroom AKA zero or almost zero-tolerance, and then that enforcement should involve more prosecutions and fewer speed-awareness courses.

None of that needs more cameras, either up poles or in vans.

[reohn2]

It's window dressing,nothing more.
There'll be no more people done for speeding as a result of this sham,ere sorry,initiative,because threre'll be no more police to do the doing.
There'll also be no more police available to catch mobile users at the wheel,like there'll be no more police to catch the loonies who threaten and abuse cyclists on a daily basis,and on,and on........
The words 'gangsters and 'paradise are words that immediately spring to mind.......

[pwa]

In the absence of particular hazards (children on the pavement, zebra crossing, row of parked cars, etc, etc) being prosecuted for being 1mph over the limit will seem to many to be OTT. In fact, a driver who is 1mph over the limit is very close to being a model citizen. If tolerance of excess speed is to be reduced to zero, a different range of punishments must be formulated. Small punishments for minor infringements, and a gradual escalation up to a whacking big penalty for 40mph in a 30 zone. I don't think anyone should face losing their licence if all they have against them is a few instances of 1mph over the limit. Clearly, the presence of particular hazards reduces the appropriate speed, so I'm not suggesting that it is okay to do a few mph above the speed limit as you cruise over a crossing. And I'm not suggesting that complete disregard for limits is okay. We just need the punishment to fit the offence, and for small offences to get small punishments. 1mph over the limit in a low hazard situation is, I think, trivial in comparison to texting whilst driving.

[[XAP]Bob]

1mph over the limit in a low hazard situation is, I think, trivial in comparison to texting whilst driving.

OTOH it is still breaking the law.

I don't get *nothing* if I 'only' steal a few quid from a shop till.

[mjr]

I think that given resource limitations in the Police force there does need to be prioritisation over where they target their efforts. It's difficult to generalise but I'd rather they put more effort into things like mobile phone use and close passes than somebody doing 32 in a 30 limit. Guessing but I think reading/posting to Facebook whilst driving is probably more dangerous than 2mph over the speed limit. But I'm not and expert and it becomes a complex issue where catching people 2 mph over the speed limit means you're just taking more pictures from a speed camera whereas catching more drivers on Facebook is maybe harder.

Ah, but why have they gone 2mph over the speed limit? Was it because they were futzing with their phone instead of concentrating on driving? The recent clampdown on visible mobile phone use seems mainly to have encouraged most motorists to hold the phone near the handbrake and so look even further away from the road ahead! It's pretty obvious when you see it (slumped slightly sideways, looking down for long periods of time) but now you can't catch them on the phone on camera

Even if 30-means-30 only got distracted drivers to average 20-25 in a 30 instead of the current 35ish, then that would probably be a very good thing.

A recent traffic survey for a planning application found that the average speed further along my road is 38-39mph, despite that section dropping to about 10mph twice a day due to the nearby junction of 3 A roads. It's a 40mph limit (and there are a couple of bends and a brow where that's not safe) but currently no-one is worried about doing 45mph along it because they know no-one will be punished below 40 + 10% + 2 = 46mph. Collisions seem a near-daily occurence - mostly minor, but sometimes catastrophic.

[Cyril Haearn]

A few Sundays back I was out driving on a few jobs and in the course of two hours I passed three speed vans, or maybe the same one in three different locations. Had I been much over the 30 limit on all three locations I could have had three letters through the post. So I'm not sure enforcement is lacking in my area.

You could have posted that on "coincidences"
I would imagine it was the same van each time, in a very small area. In any case, safety cameras/vehicles should always be hidden
They are rare as hens teeth in North Wales

I was stopped for a "traffic offence" by West Merci Police once
Driving "too slowly", I am proud of that but it does show their priorities
Was in 1993, mind

The suspicion with particularly slow drivers (steady 25 mph on a designated 60mph road with no obvious hazards, for example) is that they are either drunk or visually impaired, so that is what they attract attention.

It was late evening in a quiet suburb. I had slowed down because a Citroen BX ( ) was following too close behind, then I turned off right, the cops followed me home, they asked me whether I had been drinking (of course not!) I was doing maybe 22mph where 30mph max was allowed. I try to coast and avoid braking as far as possible, I must have infuriated thousands of normal drivers
There was a good post by Meic recently describing how he glides along and leaves gaps of up to 500m, +1

[Psamathe]

I think that given resource limitations in the Police force there does need to be prioritisation over where they target their efforts. It's difficult to generalise but I'd rather they put more effort into things like mobile phone use and close passes than somebody doing 32 in a 30 limit. Guessing but I think reading/posting to Facebook whilst driving is probably more dangerous than 2mph over the speed limit. But I'm not and expert and it becomes a complex issue where catching people 2 mph over the speed limit means you're just taking more pictures from a speed camera whereas catching more drivers on Facebook is maybe harder.

Ah, but why have they gone 2mph over the speed limit? Was it because they were futzing with their phone instead of concentrating on driving?.....

Or was it because they were focusing on the nearby cyclist and suspected (s)he might be making an unpredictable move and hadn't been glancing at their speedo as often as they might normally ...

Lots of possibilities and I'm not saying breaking the law is acceptable, just that we should not e.g. be focusing on people dropping cigarette ends when we have fly-tippers dumping toxic waste ... (focus limited resource into addressing/stopping the greater dangers).

Ian