A tougher line on speeding?

[mjr]

Even if going just a bit over the maximum limit often does not result in an 'accident' IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!

And it uses more energy and causes more noise

You dont get it do you?
No one isn't perfect,even you.

And so drivers who realise this aim at 29mph to give themselves margin for error. People will learn.

The stop light of shame is a great idea

[Pete Owens]

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

It is comical that the very same papers that only a few weeks ago were whinging about how the police were making money by offering speed awareness courses are now complaining that they might not be offering them to quite so many criminal drivers!

[Pete Owens]

It is also interesting to note that those who took the D***y M**l line on the iniquity of imposing a modest car parking fee https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14046- are also keen to express their support for criminal drivers on this thread. Again with the D***y M**l trope of the emphasising the supposed goodness of character of the criminals.

[pwa]

No, three points on the licence is exactly the right strength punishment. On its own, it has almost no effect, but if they don't change their ways and keep below the limit, they'll lose their driving privileges.

What the heck do you mean "to the eye, within the speed limit"? Did their car lack a speedometer?

"To the eye, within the speed limit" simply means that as I don't carry a speed gun I don't know exactly what speed others' cars are doing, but I can tell someone is either within the thirty limit or not much above it, rather than doing 35. That's all. I see nothing to be gained from focusing on those who are trying to get it right rather than those who just don't care.

If they were trying, they should be able to do it before being caught four times and losing a driving licence, unless they're so incompetent that they probably should be stopped.

The truly reckless probably should get harsher penalties, but we're not talking about the difference between 31 and 36mph in those cases. That's the window where the careless are, surely?

At the moment, in most cases 35mph in a 30 will get you booked. Not 36. Doing 35 is a bit careless, I agree, but if we are taking tolerance down to zero I think the people caught will not be the ones who consciously do 40 in a 30, they will be the ones who aim for 30 and momentarily forget. The ones who offend by a bigger margin are clued up about where the cameras are likely to be and do the stupid decelerating / accelerating thing.

100% compliance is a fantasy that will never happen whilst humans drive. All drivers can and will make an occasional mistake. So the aim, surely, must be to get all drivers trying to get it right. Detection in places where it currently doesn't happen must be the key. Hidden cameras in less predictable places so that people will feel they have to be compliant on all roads, not just those special locations with cameras. And keep the existing small margin for error, or introduce a new lower level of penalty for 1mph over the limit.

[mjr]

Doing 35 is a bit careless, I agree, but if we are taking tolerance down to zero I think the people caught will not be the ones who consciously do 40 in a 30, they will be the ones who aim for 30 and momentarily forget. [...] 100% compliance is a fantasy that will never happen whilst humans drive. All drivers can and will make an occasional mistake. So the aim, surely, must be to get all drivers trying to get it right.

If they're aiming for exactly the limit, they're not trying to get it right - they're trying to go as fast as they dare.

And keep the existing small margin for error, or introduce a new lower level of penalty for 1mph over the limit.

That's been suggested repeatedly despite other discussions on here saying motoring penalties are already very lenient. What penalty lower than 3 mostly-irrelevant warning points do you think is appropriate for endangering people who live on that street?

And why not just aim for 29, 28 or 27 and give yourself whatever margin of error you feel appropriate for your ability?

If you're going to cut it close, check how far under the speedo is - mine's about 7% under, as I discovered when installing a new speedo.

[Cyril Haearn]

Even if going just a bit over the maximum limit often does not result in an 'accident' IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!

And it uses more energy and causes more noise

You dont get it do you?
No one isn't perfect,even you.

I am not perfect as I described above
It would be best to set the cameras to 30.0 mph, that would catch the big fish AND the small fish. Instead of aiming for 30 mph as a standard speed one could aim for 25 max
Anything that reduces speeds is welcome, right?

[Steve398]

The 10% inaccuracy on standard motor vehicles is simply a matter of finance, to make it any better would cost the manufacturer and of course the consumer more. Until the motor industry are obliged to provide calibrated speedometers for all vehicles the '1 mph' excess speed prosecution can't happen.

Er, but the margin of error is all on the indicating too high side of actual
I agree that the '1 mph over' comment was what might be expected from a pen-pusher, though

As I remember from my Traffic Patrol Courses, it's actually +/- 10%. That being said all of my vehicles read a speed greater than I'm actually doing, but I tend to prefer using the speed indicated on my sat-nav rather than the speedo reading.

I would also add that I do keep to the posted limits, but a + 1 mph prosecution is completely unworkable for both Public or the Police.

[mjr]

As I remember from my Traffic Patrol Courses, it's actually +/- 10%. That being said all of my vehicles read a speed greater than I'm actually doing, but [...]

Do any speedos read over unless deliberately reset to do so? I've not seen any and even my new one came preset to be 7% under which turned out to match the original exactly. You'd have to deliberately reset it to show exact speed. Doesn't the lack of speedos reading over cast doubt on what you remember from the course?

[reohn2]

[quote="Cyril Haearn"]
I am not perfect as I described above
It would be best to set the cameras to 30.0 mph, that would catch the big fish AND the small fish. Instead of aiming for 30 mph as a standard speed one could aim for 25 max
Anything that reduces speeds is welcome, right?[/quote]

Upto now the margin for error afforded to drivers is 10% over the posted limit,AIUI what's been proposed is zero tolerance ie;no margin for error.
This approach will not catch anymore criminals,nor will it stop the ones who habitually break the law as a matter of course.
It will do sod all to ban the drivers with umpteen points on their licences and it won't stop the dangerous loonies I encounter daily,nor will it catch and bring to book those who intimidate cyclists,or the ones who drive with defective lights,bald tyres,no insurance,VED,MOT or licence.
It won't because there is in sufficient police to do the job in hand and it won't catch them on camera because mostly there's no camera in the box in static cameras.
Mobile cameras may catch a few more doing 31+mph in a 30limit whilst the the real criminals laugh their socks off.

That's the reality of it it's a joke,window dressing,making it look like the government is interested when they aren't.
There's this room,inside there's this elephant,it seems to have the ability to make itself invisible ..........



NOTE,I've no idea why the quote isn't highlighted

[pwa]

Doing 35 is a bit careless, I agree, but if we are taking tolerance down to zero I think the people caught will not be the ones who consciously do 40 in a 30, they will be the ones who aim for 30 and momentarily forget. [...] 100% compliance is a fantasy that will never happen whilst humans drive. All drivers can and will make an occasional mistake. So the aim, surely, must be to get all drivers trying to get it right.

If they're aiming for exactly the limit, they're not trying to get it right - they're trying to go as fast as they dare.

And keep the existing small margin for error, or introduce a new lower level of penalty for 1mph over the limit.

That's been suggested repeatedly despite other discussions on here saying motoring penalties are already very lenient. What penalty lower than 3 mostly-irrelevant warning points do you think is appropriate for endangering people who live on that street?

And why not just aim for 29, 28 or 27 and give yourself whatever margin of error you feel appropriate for your ability?

If you're going to cut it close, check how far under the speedo is - mine's about 7% under, as I discovered when installing a new speedo.

Let's give a real life example. Leaving my own village in the direction of Llantwit Major on the main road (a B road) you leave the built up area behind you, with its zebra crossing, and find yourself on a wide, straight bit of road with no pedestrians and no parked vehicles. The 30 limit still applies for several hundred metres of that, at the end of which is the national speed limit sign.

Now approaching that sign you find two different types of motorist. One sort speed up to 40 long before they get to the sign. I wish they wouldn't but they do. The other sort keep the speed down to 30 or thereabouts. Neither would satisfy you, but with a clearly hazard free bit of road I don't accept that someone doing 31mph would be introducing any danger. In that particular situation I feel sticking rigidly to the speed limit, right up to the sign, is pedantic. But back in the centre of the village, with the side roads and the crossing, the two pubs and the shop, 30mph could be too fast.

But I think you will agree that safety would be improved if speed cameras were hidden and changed to new locations frequently. I'd support that. If we really do have to chase up people caught very slightly over the limit, let's taper the points in, starting with one point. If I got one point it would bother me, so I think it would bother other drivers too.

[Bmblbzzz]

After an initial hiccup TranServ have started a new innovation near me. These are the stop lights of shame on the A75. Speeding motorists get a red stop light and so loose any time bonus they might have gained from speeding through the village. I’ve read that after only a week of use it’s wonderful to see traffic travelling at a sedate pace that everyone adopts.
http://www.scotlandtranserv.co.uk/green ... m-project/

I like that idea.

Me too!

Good idea. Commonly used in France, I think.

[Bmblbzzz]

Even if going just a bit over the maximum limit often does not result in an 'accident' IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!

And it uses more energy and causes more noise

You dont get it do you?
No one is perfect,even you.

That's what Cyril Haearn is saying, isn't it! No one is perfect, therefore everyone occasionally pays the price of those mistakes. In this case the price is low; 3 points and a £60 fine (if it's still £60 it hasn't risen with inflation for at least a decade). When the speeding is greater and especially if it's intentional, the penalty is or should be greater also. The penalty should reflect not only the intention but the fact.

[Cyril Haearn]

Even if going just a bit over the maximum limit often does not result in an 'accident' IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!

And it uses more energy and causes more noise

You dont get it do you?
No one is perfect,even you.

That's what Cyril Haearn is saying, isn't it! No one is perfect, therefore everyone occasionally pays the price of those mistakes. In this case the price is low; 3 points and a £60 fine (if it's still £60 it hasn't risen with inflation for at least a decade). When the speeding is greater and especially if it's intentional, the penalty is or should be greater also. The penalty should reflect not only the intention but the fact.

I have never paid even that low price, 3 points..
By obeying the law and trying to drive economically (coasting up to red lights instead of accelerating and braking late &c &c..) I have infuriated thousands of normal drivers
Do I get a reward for that?

[reohn2]

Even if going just a bit over the maximum limit often does not result in an 'accident' IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!

And it uses more energy and causes more noise

You dont get it do you?
No one is perfect,even you.

That's what Cyril Haearn is saying, isn't it! No one is perfect, therefore everyone occasionally pays the price of those mistakes. In this case the price is low; 3 points and a £60 fine (if it's still £60 it hasn't risen with inflation for at least a decade). When the speeding is greater and especially if it's intentional, the penalty is or should be greater also. The penalty should reflect not only the intention but the fact.

The penalty is greater with an increase in speed,not great enough IMHO for over 10% over the limit.
The point is this joke of a statement won't change anything but for the few who happen to caught a 1mph over the limit,which will be rare if at all.
See my previous post.

[pwa]

You dont get it do you?
No one is perfect,even you.

That's what Cyril Haearn is saying, isn't it! No one is perfect, therefore everyone occasionally pays the price of those mistakes. In this case the price is low; 3 points and a £60 fine (if it's still £60 it hasn't risen with inflation for at least a decade). When the speeding is greater and especially if it's intentional, the penalty is or should be greater also. The penalty should reflect not only the intention but the fact.

I have never paid even that low price, 3 points..
By obeying the law and trying to drive economically (coasting up to red lights instead of accelerating and braking late &c &c..) I have infuriated thousands of normal drivers
Do I get a reward for that?

The difference between you and someone with three points is that you didn't get caught. That's all.