Does the threat of disqualification deter speeding?

[Vorpal]

I was looking for something else and came across this study Does the Threat of Disqualification Deter Drivers from Speeding? published in 2008 by the DfT.

It includes both good news and bad; that is that the threat of disqualification does deter speeding for most drivers, but that their knowledge about the consequences of speeding and the use of speed cameras is poor, and furthermore, there is a small minority of drivers who persist in illegal behaviour, believing that speed limits should not apply to them.

The part that I found the most interesting was the section on Qualitative studies, beginning on page 37. The people included in this study were mostly those who already had points accumulated, and of those, a number were repeat offenders, and people previously disqualified. So, the population is not representative of British drivers, but is a significant population in road safety terms. The conclusions included the following recommendations (the last seems to be an observation, rather than recommendation)

•The disqualification system is seen as lacking in consistency, when 12 points
may or may not result in withdrawal of the licence, depending on the
persuasiveness of pleas of exceptional hardship in court. Sentencing guidelines
on this issue could usefully be reviewed.
• Consideration should be given to better publicity explaining why cameras are
needed at particular points, and linking them more clearly to the speed limits in
force.
• High mileage, older males should be seen as a major target group. The fact that
many speeding infringements are work-related activities suggests possible
avenues for intervention.
• The illegal passing on of points to others is widely held to be a common (and to
some, acceptable) practice. Further investigations of this issue should be carried
out.
• There is an identifiable hardcore of drivers who seem resistant to efforts to make
them reduce their speeds. Deterring these drivers is likely to be a long and
difficult task.

I don't recall any discussion about this, at the time of publication. DfT seem to have just stuck it on the internet with no fanfare and let it wither in obscurity.

[reohn2]

............. DfT seem to have just stuck it on the internet with no fanfare and let it wither in obscurity.

There's a surprise












................................not!

[meic]

I am Meic and I used to speed professionally.

Twelve points was your allowance and dont forget it is a rolling allowance, the points expire after three years "falling off the back" as you are collecting them at the front. This meant that with a good eye out you could speed as the norm but you also normally respected the limit plus thirty as that was an instant ban.

In the case of myself and my Brothers in Crime, we were not going to be happy at the speed limit, it was only the threat of punishment that had any effect on us, we were not stupid we knew the risks but would rather take them than live a safe existence.

When we reached nine valid points you would normally consider these options: take a foreign trip or another job for a while, carry on and take a ban if caught (then be back on the road after three months with all points wiped) or as a last resort (mostly) obey the law until some points had cleared.

Honestly the twelve points was seen as an allowance which you felt that you should "use to the full".
The prospect of the instant ban at 30 over the limit meant that we stuck at just under 100mph on motorways/dc's and around 90mph off them.

It appears the respectable criminals in suits have a much larger allowance than "dispatch rider scum criminals".

The insurance premiums now offer a deterrent to the much more moderate speeding elements.
Having had a clean licence for decades now, I am much more scared of the effect of 3 points on my insurance than my licence but drivers like me (now) are not the problem.

[thirdcrank]

I misinterpreted the thread title in assuming it was about the enforcement of disqualifications once they had been imposed. I'm sure I've posted before that compliance with a driving ban is almost voluntary. I'll not derail the thread by repeating the argument now but people driving company vehicles are probably the only sizeable class of driver who might be obliged to observe a ban.

Back on thread, most of what's quoted there seems so obvious to me it seems hardly worth paying to have somebody discover it through research.

I've not had time to dig into the link - I'm posting between domestic duties - but the "high mileage male" conclusion makes me query whether the researchers really understand this. I'll suggest that this is more of a comment on the way our society works ie large executive-type motors tend to be driven big distances by people with large executive jobs who tend to be men. Going on from that, it seems obvious to me that anybody condemned to spend long hours sitting at the wheel of a motor vehicle on a regular basis might try to shorten journey times.

I'll suggest it depends on the individual as to whether they are concerned about detection and eventual disqualification. I really do try very hard to comply with speed limits and I've a clean licence dating back to 1965. I've had a couple of instances in recent years when I thought I may have inadvertently been snapped by a speed camera (on one occasion the 30mph signs had been turned at 90degs to traffic, and on the other, the advance warning of a 50mph on a motorway said something like one mile ahead, when the limit, enforced by average speed cameras, began almost immediately.) On each occasion I was completely gutted, but nothing happened in either case.

The following point may be tucked away in the research: all though the imposition of disqualifications may be inconsistent, the enforcement of speeding by fixed cameras is accompanied by so many warnings that for most of the time, the only thing that controls speed elsewhere is congestion. The rules about the siting of speed cameras were a political sop by a New Labour govt terrified of being portrayed as anti-motorist. Researchers are slow to criticise their funders.

(Others have posted while I was messing about with the washer etc.)

[Vorpal]

The following point may be tucked away in the research: all though the imposition of disqualifications may be inconsistent, the enforcement of speeding by fixed cameras is accompanied by so many warnings that for most of the time, the only thing that controls speed elsewhere is congestion. The rules about the siting of speed cameras were a political sop by a New Labour govt terrified of being portrayed as anti-motorist. Researchers are slow to criticise their funders.

I think that your points come out in reading the actual paper, which is 107 pages, including appendices. What I posted was only the recommendations. Frankly, the 'qualitative studies' makes for some pretty scary reading. I don't think that anyone could read that and say that the researchers tried to avoid criticising their funders.

The recommendations do seem a bit watered down compared to the findings, but perhaps the researchers thought to put forward recommendations that had some chance of being implemented.

The way the publication has been handled indicates otherwise. If it were my research, I would be very disappointed.

[thirdcrank]

I did say I'd not read the whole paper. I'd still say that this is largely a political issue. The government's approach to speeding is a pretty good case study of what's wrong with our political system. At one level, there's little popular appetite for more effective control of traffic speed, so it could be argued that the situation reflects the democratic will of the people. OTOH, there's a case for our leaders identifying which policies are the best and then showing some leadership. Within my memory, the only transport minister with the courage and determination to do this was Barbara Castle with the breathalyser. Let's remember that it's not long since the then transport minister was playing to the gallery by suggesting an increase in the national limit to 80mph.

I'd query why road safety in its various forms is part of the transport portfolio, when it's really about public health. Even when it's accepted that it's to be dealt with by the transport minister, they do little to educate anybody about the transport benefits of speed restrictions eg in heavy traffic, robustly enforced speed limits can improve traffic flow by allowing smooth travel, albeit at a theoretically reduced speed. We've had a lot of roadworks on the M62 over the last couple of years. At one stage there were advisory 50's in place, and the result of some drivers bashing through at 90 with others observing the 50 was chaos. As I'm always posting, robust camera enforcement of traffic lights would reduce journey times because the intergreens could be reduced.

IMO the way things are going is well-illustrated by the introduction of Traffic Officers to patrol the motorways.

[Jughead]

Giving the number of drivers flouting the law I doubt it. Whether that be speeding, drink driving, dangerous or careless driving.

Here, rather than a ban and a fine, maybe they should be sentenced to cycle everywhere. Maybe we can convert them.

[MartinC]

..............At one level, there's little popular appetite for more effective control of traffic speed, so it could be argued that the situation reflects the democratic will of the people...................

Not necessarily true. It's certainly the view that's promoted in the media and by those in power. I recall a survey a while ago (10 years or more) by the AA of their members. Being intimidated by other speeding motorists was a concern shared by a large majority. This moderated the tone of the AA for a while but I guess it's been largely forgotten now. IIRC Home Office crime surveys have shown the same thing too.

I don't disagree with your analysis but the assumption that the majority are in favour of a laissez faire approach to speeding is a view that the motoring lobby like to encourage - we shouldn't help them!

[thirdcrank]

The argument is that in a plural democracy like ours, are one measure of public opinion but they don't really count strtength of feeling. When the New Labour govt was swept to power in 1997, there were all sorts of expectations, based on what had been said in the months and even years before the election. The result was the nearest thing to a total elected dictatorship that might be imagined. Any number of reforms could have been introduced - popular or not. All sorts of research projects were set up, and Placeman Whitty was put i/c an inquiry into traffic speed. At the same time, focus groups and the like were beavering away establishing what people really thought or, more often, what form of weasel-words would convince them that they wanted this or that.

I'm not suggesting the spinners were correct in their predictions of what would be accepted. The smoking ban in public places in England (and Wales?) was an example. No 10 Downing Street was terrified of what would happen, in spite of its successful introduction in Scotland. One obvious problem is that so many people want things both ways. I persist in my opinion that, ultimately, the result in this case has been a lack of political will to do anything effective about "speeding.".

[blackbike]

The threat of disqualification won't work if it isn't carried through.

On the news today we learn that thousands of motorists with 12 plus points aren't banned, and there is one motorist from Liverpool with 45 points who is still allowed to drive.

Why do we allow magistrates discretion in this area? Letting a convicted criminal back on the road with a string of speeding crimes to his name because he needs to drive to earn a living is as sensible as allowing a paedophile teacher back into the classroom for the same reason.

I don't make this comparison lightly. Being killed or seriously injured by a criminal speeding driver can wreck a life just as badly as a paedophile teacher can.

[thirdcrank]

... Why do we allow magistrates discretion in this area? ...

I can't claim that sentencing powers is a strong point, but if IIRC, originally, courts only had discretion over "special reasons" ie elements of the offence proved which merited leniency. Things related to the defendant's circumstances were excluded. The simple fact is that driving is the only job some people can do and there are plenty more which require a clean driving licence. Faced with the (hard to disprove) mitigation that the defendant was in danger of losing their livelihood, many benches bent the rules. Eventually the "exceptional hardship" hardship provisions were introduced and since then, plenty of our learned friends have been keeping exceptional hardship away from their own doors by arguing this mitigation on behalf of clients. (And why not? That's the way the system operates.)

[CJ]

The simple fact is that driving is the only job some people can do ...

Really? I wouldn't have thought the operation of a supermarket checkout called for greater skill, attention or dexterity than that required to drive a car.

[blackbike]

As for exceptional hardship, it must be exceptionally hard to be paralysed for life or a have a relative killed by a driver with 12 plus points.

I'd rather a criminal lived in poverty than take the risk with the safety of other people and it amazes me that some magistrates think differently.

[meic]

It wouldnt amaze you so much if you were to look at the endorsements section of their driving licences.

[NUKe]

Recent case here ex footballer caught doing 107 and being let off a ban because he was unemployed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... g-ban.html
he would have suffered real hardship