30kmh – making streets liveable

[Edwards]

I suggested on here that 30 Mph signs should be change to mean 30 Kph but this idea was shouted down. With the response that signs do not do anything.
The principle that they just might slow enough people down to slow some of the others has not been tried. In the present financial stuff we are not going to get more Police, so it has to be worth a try.

The think idea of about sentences being increased or more prosecutions is not going to happen, the people that can change this have not listened for years. In my opinion they are not going to start now.

The one thing I can think of to enforce speeding in the present financial stuff is the put it out to contract. Then let the companies keep a percentage of the ticket price to cover their costs and profits, no cost to the tax payer plus we get money for the government.

[hexhome]

The problem is that 'attacking the motorist' is seen as political death. In my view, speeding penalties are far too low and I would prefer to see them raised even to the point that they were income raising for the Government.

[PaulCumbria]

I'm not sure what's wrong with the cops saying 20mph limits should be self-enforcing - self enforcement would be much better than only-enforced-when-there's-a-copper-about.

Vertical deflection (speed bumps) is out of favour for enforcing speed limits, so we'd be talking about horizontal deflection - chicanes, reduced sightlines, road narrowing, strategic placement of parking bays etc etc. This would only be installed over time, and not on every road, but it would have a cumulative effect.

As well as the self-enforcing nature of the driver in front complying with the new limit, which I reckon is considerable, it's also worth considering the implications if a driver DOES flout the limit. AFAIK, twice the speed limit means an automatic ban, so a 20 mph limit would bring down the amount by which people are prepared to speed. (I don't think the police saying 20 mph limits should be self-enforcing means they'd NEVER enforce, BTW.)

[reohn2]

I think that you will have to, they are not responsible for sentencing.

I didn't say they were.[/quote]
Having read my my post again I conceed that I did.
Though that's not what I meant.

[reohn2]

The problem is that 'attacking the motorist' is seen as political death. In my view, speeding penalties are far too low and I would prefer to see them raised even to the point that they were income raising for the Government.

Which goes to show how skewed both the politrickal class and the motorist has become.When the real problem lies in a lack of self worth in the latter and complete control by multinational companies of the former.
That may seem like a very sweeping statement,but I'll stand by it being at the root of the matter.

[thirdcrank]

... I shall not bite at the last sentence because I understand exactly what you mean despite classless (thanks bicycle ) ...

I wasn't trying to be provocative.

The "policing by consent" model is widely preached in police training (ot it was in my day) but, it's only used when it suits. In the matter of road traffic it's being used IMO to justify inaction. Cyclists suffer because they are viewed as delinquents.

Part of the problem with road traffic enforcement is the use of the crminal justice system. An appempt has been made to simplify things by introducing fixed penalties AKA tickets, but that only works to the extent that most people pay up without question. Once people fall back on their right to a full hearing, the system is back to square one. Fixed penalties require the issuer to be fully conversant with every element of the legislation. That would be OK if the legislation were simplified but it isn't. Simplification would benefit everybody, except the loophole merchants.

This is why we get the repeated cock ups over pavement cycling. Everybody knows that cycling on a footpath is illegal, but it's not quite so simple.

The criminal standard of proof is set high, and with good reason. I'm not suggesting that people charged with serious matters should face kangaroo courts, but it seems to me that the present situation has shown that as a society, we cannot afford to use the criminal justice model for traffic management. I'll suggest that if there was more universal and consistent enforcement of all the realtively minor traffic matters, there would be fewer people coming to the attention of the Crown Court for matters like causing death by dangerous driving.

On the absurdity of our current system, I'll remind people that we are still awaiting the outcome of a case where a deputy judge of the High Court who is alleged to have driven through a red light at over twice the speed limit is challenging the power of the authorities to prosecute him. ie The implication is that he thinks it's unfair that he should have to face a fair trial.
==========
Lots of other posts as I was preparing this - there should be a speed limit.

[hexhome]

Having read my my post again I conceed that I did.
Though that's not what I meant.

And I agree with the principle that some penalties are too weak. Problem is there is little consistency and often we don't know the full details of any individual case. It may be of interest that penalties for offences by vocational drivers are often considerably higher than those for the general public. As an example; 'Penalties for using your phone while driving;
If you’re caught using a hand-held phone while driving or riding, you can get an automatic fixed penalty notice. You’ll get 3 penalty points on your licence and a fine of £60.
Your case could also go to court and you could be disqualified from driving or riding and get a maximum fine of £1,000. Drivers of buses or goods vehicles could get a maximum fine of £2,500.'

As vocational drivers are amongst the lowest paid workers in the country, this is a considerable deterrent but only when there is a likelihood of being caught.

[thirdcrank]

The likelihood of being caught is definitely one of the biggest deterrents and a precondition for most of the others. I think it's generally accepted that it was the formation of the first proper police forces, particularly the Metropolitan Police, which led to the first real retreat from capital punishment as the sentence for nearly everything. I think it also has to be recognised that an over-complicated legal system can push things back the other way and I'd suggest that this is why parts of the USA still have capital punishment and prison sentences extending to several lifetimes. I'd contrast this with much of Europe where the general public seems at ease with less big stick and more rehabilitation.

I'm arguing for more detection and simplified enforcement. As I've posted, I think the solution eventually will be more of these powers passing to the highway authorities.

When I joined the police, even an unpaid parking ticket could only be enforced by somebody tracing the alleged offender (perhaps after serving a series of notices on owners/keepers) interviewing them under caution and reporting them for summons. Anybody who decided not to co-operate could get away with it most of the time. I had several long-running battles with persistant offenders living on the beat I covered, some of whom attracted ticket enquiries from all over the place. That was all streamlined, along with SORN's, continuing insurance cover, computerised registration and the like; the enforcement of yellow line parking was passed to local authorities and "decriminalised" ie appeals are heard on a sopposedly no-nonsense basis by parking adjudicators. Highway authorities have already been given certain powers to enforce things like bus lanes and I can't see a good reason to argue against more of the same.

It's been pointed out that nobody likes upsetting the motorist. That's not something that seems to affect local town halls if they can smell money.

There seems to be widespread agreement that there needs to be some sort of reform of the police. That can either be done piecemeal, or in a planned way. The last Royal Commission on the police service reported in the early 1960's and there's been little since. The Edmund Davies report into police pay and conditions in the late 1970's examined the role of the police as part of the process of deciding suitable pay ( "provider of social services of the last resort" is one that comes to mind) but it led to no organisational change. PACE and the CPS were introduced some five years later and there's never been any public review of the result. IMO the biggest has been the collapse of road traffic enforcement, which is where we came in.

[hexhome]

I'm arguing for more detection and simplified enforcement. As I've posted, I think the solution eventually will be more of these powers passing to the highway authorities.

I would agree that that argument is an ideal goal. I also believe that you are correct in that road and traffic policing will be passed on to other authorities. As I pointed out on the thread re headlamp faults, VOSA now have the authority to stop motor vehicles and are taking an interest in private vehicles now as well as their very active role in policing commercial traffic. They are now equipped with ANPR and are looking for offences involving insurance and licencing. Unfortunately, it is a big step to then go on to police driver behaviour and speeding, but I believe that it could happen. The big problem they will come up against is 'failing to stop'.

[Shootist]

Once more there is the battle cry of 'Make a law'. The problem is drivers, not speed limits. Make a law for the ignorant or arrogant (or both) and it will be ignored by them, as they know better. OTOH, if laws were enforced elsewhere that removed the privilege of driving as part of the penalty then the errant driver would be removed from the problem.

To own firearms (legally) is a privilege in this country, and so it should be with a car, an item that kills so many more people than firearms ever will outside of a war. Making such a law merely means that the idiots have been accepted, and the inevitable lack of enforcement too. It would be better, more productive, to seek a radical improvement in the standard of driving required to pass the test, and penalties for bad driving that involve re-taking the driving test, but with an even higher standard required.

Not until the standard of driving is massively improved, and the licence is in danger of being lost, will driving standards improve, which should be the main goal.

[Shootist]

On the absurdity of our current system, I'll remind people that we are still awaiting the outcome of a case where a deputy judge of the High Court who is alleged to have driven through a red light at over twice the speed limit is challenging the power of the authorities to prosecute him. ie The implication is that he thinks it's unfair that he should have to face a fair trial.

Sounds interesting. Have you any further information on this? A link perhaps? If he's successful it'll upset the apple cart big time.

[thirdcrank]

I'm certainly not suggesting another law: on the contrary, I'm suggesting simplifying what we've already got and making enforcement more relevant to the 21C. Nobody can suggest that what he have now is "working" in any shape or form. We have some automatic enforcement - speed limits and the like, which may or may not be operational or just there as a threat when the kit inside has been switched off or removed years ago - and apart from that it's patchy. It's possible to travel all day and never see a marked police car. The number of specialist traffic police has been cut back to a shadow of their former strength and what's less obvious is that the ordinary bobby on the beat (ie the backbone of the service) no longer spends their time dealing with traffic offences. The experience of many people who bother to report bad driving and the like is the standard "Nothing we can do about it."

It is fair to point out that the response to fatal collisions is now much more thorough than once was the case, but the ideal would be far fewer fatal collisions rather than better investigations.

At the moment, the govt is keen to save money and fair enough, but they seem to have no real plan or even idea, beyond cutting back on police pay and/ or numbers.
===========================================================
shootist - you posted at the same time as I did. There's already a thread on here about this - I'll dig it out and insert a link here. BTW, it's next up at court on 29 Jan
================================================================
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=66407&hilit=summons&start=45#p586007

If the link works, that's wher I first mentioned it. As mentioned further down that thread, it's been to court against since then and as I mentioned above, it's next on stage on 29 Jan. You are the first person on here who has registered any interest in the subject. I suspect we can expect a run of Mousetrap proportions, perhaps with a trip to Europe.

[Vorpal]

It is fair to point out that the response to fatal collisions is now much more thorough than once was the case, but the ideal would be far fewer fatal collisions rather than better investigations.

It may be more thorough, but it still doesn't go far enough, IMO. Investigators seldom go beyond the immediate fault (or not) in an accident and do not examine the systemic issues that allow the accident to happen. In the management of safety in every other area, this is a given. There are accident investigation methods devoted to identifying the systemic issues, and they are normally used in investigating other accidents. In other areas of transportation safety they are frequently required.

In my direct and obviously short experience, PCCs are not interested in roads Policing, it is not sexy enough politically.

They also have a variety of priorities which altogether are impossible to manage with the allocated budgets. As many road traffic 'violations' are socially acceptable (everyone speeds, right?) and to some extent, people accept accidents as a part of the cost of the convenience of driving, it easy to reduce the priority of policing traffic.

This is one of the reasons that road traffic police have separate departments and budgets in many other places (ala CHiPs)

[hexhome]

Once more there is the battle cry of 'Make a law'.

I don't think so. We are saying that peer group pressure is changing attitudes and that road policing is changing. The 20mph/30kmh speed limit is already there and available to local authorities as they see fit. Again it appears that public pressure is demanding that the use of reduced urban speed limits be more wide spread.

To turn the whole thing on it's head, are you therefore saying that a good driver doesn't need speed limits as they will always drive within their own perceived abilities?

[thirdcrank]

In theory, at least, there's a lot of research goes into the analysis of road "accidents" in the UK. Part of the problem is that it's largely done in a driver oriented way. Also, the data are largely collected (in the stats booklets) by people looking for criminal evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than what might have contributed to the collision. (The tendency of pedestrians to be run over near a pedestrian crossing is the type of thing I have in mind.) Going on from that, the UK authorities are committed to casualty reduction, rather than making the roads safer.

Although I'm a strong supporter of traffic enforcement, I think that in modern conditions it needs a lot more thought and charging about at high speed with lights ablaze is probably often no longer the best way to do it. Apart from the obvious possibility that even highly skilled drivers make errors, it creates a situation where traffic enforcement policy is being decided by driving enthusiasts: I don't think anybody has ever become a senior officer in a traffic department through being a keen cyclist or pedestrian.

The solution to this particular issue isn't one for the police acting alone of course.