How to reduce the number of journeys made by motor vehicles on UK roads
Posted by: Steve Toy on 22 August 2004
Under UK law, iirc, the police have up to six months to prosecute drivers for motoring offences.
So if the police were to withold all fixed penalty and court summons notices for up to, say, five months and two weeks, drivers would have the opportunity to clock up enough points to be banned from driving before they knew anything.
Then all the police would need to do is install hidden cameras (or those lovely new devices that can detect the speed of vehicles up to two miles away from their location) on stretches of road where drivers were most likely to exceed the limit - along straight stretches of open road or on motorways where traffic is free-flowing.
Within six months approximately 60% of drivers will have lost their licenses so the roads will be free to all those drivers who never break the law.
Law-abiding drivers would have nothing to lose from this covert operation, the air would be cleaner, there would be fewer accidents, and more people would use public transport.
We all know that Speed Kills, so by removing all speeding motorists we'd keep Death off Our Roads.
A great idea don't you think chaps?
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Mon 23 August 2004 at 5:32.]
So if the police were to withold all fixed penalty and court summons notices for up to, say, five months and two weeks, drivers would have the opportunity to clock up enough points to be banned from driving before they knew anything.
Then all the police would need to do is install hidden cameras (or those lovely new devices that can detect the speed of vehicles up to two miles away from their location) on stretches of road where drivers were most likely to exceed the limit - along straight stretches of open road or on motorways where traffic is free-flowing.
Within six months approximately 60% of drivers will have lost their licenses so the roads will be free to all those drivers who never break the law.
Law-abiding drivers would have nothing to lose from this covert operation, the air would be cleaner, there would be fewer accidents, and more people would use public transport.
We all know that Speed Kills, so by removing all speeding motorists we'd keep Death off Our Roads.
A great idea don't you think chaps?
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Mon 23 August 2004 at 5:32.]
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by HTK
quote:
Originally posted by John Sheridan:
I think I met that driver yesterday - except he's moved into lane 3 now. Very light traffic (he should have been in lane 1). I came up behind him with a polite wake-up flash about 200m back. Did he move left? No, he waited till I'd closed to about 5 car lengths and slammed his brakes on while managing to find the time to put his hazard lights on as well. Strangely both he and his partner were making wanker signs at ME as I opted for the middle lane.
Did you report him? The police might well have better things to do but it;s possible he may have got pulled a few miles down the road for a routine check and a breath test. If nothing else it would have inconvienienced the wanker.
Cheers
Harry
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by Steve Toy
A better idea
Instead of denying all those naughty speeders their mobility, at the end of the five month and two week period just send them the bill for all the fines they've notched up over that period. In such an amnesty they'll be given one last chance to comply with the law or lose their licenses.
During that period some drivers could run up fines into hundreds of pounds without knowing it. So, assuming that 60% of drivers exceed the speed limit by 10% or more along open stretches of rural roads and on free-flowing motorways, and each of them notches up an average of five offences, that's 15 million drivers running up fines of £300 each. That's £4,500,000,000 to the treasury, and assuming a 50% profit that's £2.25 billion - enough to pay for the war in Iraq or the salaries of another 112500 civil servants for a year.
Regards,
Steve.
Instead of denying all those naughty speeders their mobility, at the end of the five month and two week period just send them the bill for all the fines they've notched up over that period. In such an amnesty they'll be given one last chance to comply with the law or lose their licenses.
During that period some drivers could run up fines into hundreds of pounds without knowing it. So, assuming that 60% of drivers exceed the speed limit by 10% or more along open stretches of rural roads and on free-flowing motorways, and each of them notches up an average of five offences, that's 15 million drivers running up fines of £300 each. That's £4,500,000,000 to the treasury, and assuming a 50% profit that's £2.25 billion - enough to pay for the war in Iraq or the salaries of another 112500 civil servants for a year.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by Mick P
Chaps
We should not be trying to reduce the number of motorist's they pay tax on fuel and we all benefit as a result.
We should build bigger and wider roads.
Regards
Mick
We should not be trying to reduce the number of motorist's they pay tax on fuel and we all benefit as a result.
We should build bigger and wider roads.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by matthewr
Yes. Widening the M4 to about 40 lanes around J16 would be a good start.
Matthew
Matthew
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by Mick P
Chaps
I am annoyed that some of you see no problem in breaking the speed limit.
If breaking speed limits causes only 1% of accidents, then that is enough reason to enforce it. The law is the law.
Regards
Mick
I am annoyed that some of you see no problem in breaking the speed limit.
If breaking speed limits causes only 1% of accidents, then that is enough reason to enforce it. The law is the law.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by andy c
quote:
Actually, if you've got someone tailgating you or flashing their lights at you then YOU are the moron. GET OUT OF THE FAST LANE!
It's up to you to ensure that you're not impeding other traffic - even if you're doing 90. It all comes down to vision. You should know what's going on around you at all times. If you can't overtake someone without holding up another car then you should delay your move - all it usually requires is a quick tap on the brakes.
This is the reason that tailgaters should be prosecuted. How many times do you want to make progerss, leave a gap in front of you, only for someone who could not have thought to leave a little earlier/realise its not everone else's fault they are late, and they just barge in from the middle lane after undertaking.
Especially if, as mentioned above, you are already exceeding the speed 'limit', which is what it is...
andy c!
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by Jez Quigley
quote:
we could educate motorists in the basic concepts of capacity & demand, variation, and flow and effectively gain 30% more road capacity without laying any more tarmac
quote:
We should build bigger and wider roads
I rest my case m'lud
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
and they just barge in from the middle lane after undertaking.
if they have enough room in the middle lane to get past you then once again YOU are at fault for not being in that space. Why were you in Lane 3 if there was more than enough room in Lane 2 for a car not only to pull up next to you but to drive at least a car length in front of you?
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by Brian OReilly
Tailgating
I find it difficult to condone tailgating John. Sure it's frustrating, if someone blocks you, but tailgating is close to intimidation. There has to be some give & take on both sides. You can probably imagine scenarios where a mirror check reveals no approaching cars, you move out to make the O/T, then get caught by someone travelling at a higher speed before you can move out of the way. Pulling out into the path of another car is pretty dumb however.
A recent incidence of tailgating here resulted in the death of a woman and her young kid.
Brian OReilly
I find it difficult to condone tailgating John. Sure it's frustrating, if someone blocks you, but tailgating is close to intimidation. There has to be some give & take on both sides. You can probably imagine scenarios where a mirror check reveals no approaching cars, you move out to make the O/T, then get caught by someone travelling at a higher speed before you can move out of the way. Pulling out into the path of another car is pretty dumb however.
A recent incidence of tailgating here resulted in the death of a woman and her young kid.
Brian OReilly
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
I find it difficult to condone tailgating John.
I'm sorry, but where have I condoned tailgating? Obviously it's dangerous - in fact it's the cause of the vast majority of accidents (about 70% of accidents are rear-enders). My argument is that if someone is tailgating you then in many circumstances it will be your own driving that has caused the situation.
quote:
then get caught by someone travelling at a higher speed before you can move out of the way
yes, that can happen and if I ever make that mistake then I accelerate so that I don't hold them up.
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
I am annoyed that some of you see no problem in breaking the speed limit.
actually neither do the police if you're driving safely. A point proven as I drove past a police car on the motorway yesterday.
quote:
If breaking speed limits causes only 1% of accidents, then that is enough reason to enforce it.
break speed limits doesn't cause any accidents. Driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions causes accidents. The police know this because they're trained to drive properly. The government also knows this but they're making too much money to worry about letting people like you in on the truth.
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by matthewr
"break speed limits doesn't cause any accidents. Driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions causes accidents"
Ther logical conclusion of this is, presumably, that you could abandon all speed limits and it would have no effect on accidents.
Matthew
Ther logical conclusion of this is, presumably, that you could abandon all speed limits and it would have no effect on accidents.
Matthew
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
Ther logical conclusion of this is, presumably, that you could abandon all speed limits and it would have no effect on accidents.
I wouldn't say all speed limits,just those on free-flowing motorways like in Germany.
Britain is the safest place in Europe to drive in terms of accidents and this has been the case since well before the automated system of speed limit enforcement came into being. This is probably due to the fact that on UK motorways speed cameras are rare outside of road works and the M25 variable speed limit area around Heathrow. Thus drivers are still permitted to make their own judgements as to safe and approprate speeds for the conditions up to the unofficial limit of about 85-90 mph.
Speed cameras on 70mph limit dual-carriageways and motorways tend to force traffic to drive bumper-to-bumper at 67 mph thus increasing the risk of nasty accidents.
Fair play to coppers who nail drivers for doing, say 78 mph in fog or in dense traffic where they may be tailgaiting.
Germany is in the no.2 spot with Spain and Portugal at the bottom - both of which have blanket 120km/h limits.
My experience with driving on German autobahns is that you have to pull in quite often to let the trio of BMW - VW Passat - Octavia wizz past you at 200 km/h + with only inches between them, like they are towing each other!
If the Germans strictly enforced safe distances they'd soon be #1 for safety, even with no speed limits on many autobahn sections.
BTW, the road death statistic for the UK in 2003 is stubbornly stuck at the 3500 mark despite the "Speed kills" dogma and automated speed limit enforcement that has grown steadily since 1997.
For the government to reduce this figure by its 40% target it needs to adopt an entirely different strategy.
The current "speed kills"/ automated speed enforcement strategy adds the equivalent to 1.5p on a litre of petrol or diesel to treasury coffers - methinks that's what the government game plan is really all about!
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Tue 24 August 2004 at 3:26.]
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by Steve Toy
On my journey back from Liverpool I was doing the steady 90 I deemed safe and appropriate on the M6 at 4.30 am Sunday morning. I had to slow down at one point as I was boxed in behind a lorry in lane 1 as a succession of cars passed me in lane 2 at about 85 mph.
At this point a police patrol car passed me in lane 3 at about 90 mph and I realised that he must have followed me at the same speed for psssibly ten miles or so - I was certainly sticking out like the proverbial sore thumb as the fastest driver on the road at the time!
He didn't pull me obviously cos I was observing lane discipline and keeping safe distances.
It's nice to see that coppers afford discretion.
I've just had dinner in Lichfield with a copper who is the boyfriend of Tasha's sister, and I told him about this. His resonse was that the copper was probably coming to the end of his shift, and even so, there were probably more pressing driver behaviour issues to be dealt with on a motorway at that time.
Regards,
Steve.
At this point a police patrol car passed me in lane 3 at about 90 mph and I realised that he must have followed me at the same speed for psssibly ten miles or so - I was certainly sticking out like the proverbial sore thumb as the fastest driver on the road at the time!
He didn't pull me obviously cos I was observing lane discipline and keeping safe distances.
It's nice to see that coppers afford discretion.
I've just had dinner in Lichfield with a copper who is the boyfriend of Tasha's sister, and I told him about this. His resonse was that the copper was probably coming to the end of his shift, and even so, there were probably more pressing driver behaviour issues to be dealt with on a motorway at that time.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by andy c
quote:
if they have enough room in the middle lane to get past you then once again YOU are at fault for not being in that space. Why were you in Lane 3 if there was more than enough room in Lane 2 for a car not only to pull up next to you but to drive at least a car length in front of you?
The reason is called 'being able to stop in the distance that you can be seen to be clear', and also complies with the rules of overtaking in Roadcraft e.g. overtaking the vehicle in the middle lane as its not making as much progress as you, & its safe to do so etc.
I do agree with correct use of the o/s lane or lane 3 as you call it, but part of that use is minimum safe distances. If people complied with this there would be lesss intimidation but it does involve correct driving method on the motorway.
andy c!
Posted on: 23 August 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
Ther logical conclusion of this is, presumably, that you could abandon all speed limits and it would have no effect on accidents.
if, and only if, people drove to the conditions.
In fact you could argue that speed limits are causing many accidents - like the guy I saw on the news who'd been in one of those massive fog assisted motorway pileups
"'they' didn't tell us to slow down"
who? The fairies???
Or people who drive down local streets with essentially a single lane due to cars parked either side at a perfectly legal 30mph.
I'm sure you could add your own examples to this.
Strict adherence to speed limits is not a good thing, but its what current government propaganda is encouraging and its why road fatalities are not being reduced in both the UK & Australia.
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Matthew T
Of course the great irony of this debate is that if we want to maximise the capacity of the motorways and road systems in the UK we should all drop our speed, of course it seems that the road congestion is set to remain taking a look through this poll with the prevailing 'they should get out of my way (the bastards) because I have every right to drive how ever fast I want to' mentally prevails.
Matthew
PS Outside of restricted hours bus lanes should be treated as part of the carriage way, you can fail your test if you fail use them as a 'slow' lane.
Matthew
PS Outside of restricted hours bus lanes should be treated as part of the carriage way, you can fail your test if you fail use them as a 'slow' lane.
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Brian OReilly
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Ther logical conclusion of this is, presumably, that you could abandon all speed limits and it would have no effect on accidents.
Matthew
There’s an awkward question.
I think Tom and Oldie raised a similar question in another thread, but it all got a bit bloody. I tried to think it through at the time, and I’ll try again now.
If I follow my own logic, then yes, the solution would be to remove all speed limits. I can’t quite go that far unfortunately. People being inherently selfish means that some deterrent is still necessary. I’ve tried to look at this from the perspective of what would make roads safer for my kid. I know this is “think-of-the-childrenism”, but I find it keeps me honest.
I could be wrong, but I just don’t believe the speed kills mantra, and the focus on speed limit enforcement has ANY significant effect on road safety, or the safety of my son. I don’t have any evidence to back up that rather sweeping statement other than the TRRL 3% report. It’s simply my opinion, but I believe accident statistics will not significantly be reduced with this mentality
It seems to me that the VAST majority of drivers exceed the posted limits, whether they realise it or not. In fact, it’s actually noticeable when I/someone else adheres to the limit. So, traffic finds it’s natural speed, moderating it only when aware of speed detection measures. You could suggest that at least a limit/fear of detection acts as a deterrent to people who would otherwise drive much faster, but although this may be the only practical containment method, it doesn’t attack the root of the problem.
I’m now convinced that the majority of road users do not want to be the cause of an accident, injury or fatality. I imagine if you talk to the guilty party after a fatal collision you will find someone who genuinely, deeply regrets what they did. But who actually takes time to think of the possible outcomes of driving badly? How many of us in this discussion realise how difficult it is to stop a car in an emergency?
If new or even experienced drivers were given the opportunity to simulate emergency braking on a skidpan, or to practice/learn risk assessment techniques, would they then moderate their driving? If you simulate the kid running into the road scenario, and you collide with the “dummy”, would that not have more of effect on real life road safety? Still need more convincing? If your child was hospitalised with a serious RTA injury, would you allow groups of new/experienced drivers to parade past their hospital bed to get a first hand picture of the results of bad driving? Would this influence their behaviour behind the wheel?
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think that making people make their own assessments about the appropriate speed for the conditions, having demonstrated the risks, is the way forward for safety.
Brian OReilly
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by matthewr
As ever in this debate I am struck by the same points:
1) If one accepts that speed limits have some benefical effect then arguning against their enforcement is patently wrong. Instead one should argue that the speed limits should be set at different levels and then enforced at that level. If, as is often quoted, speed has little ro no effect on most accidents, this should be an easy argument to win when backed with appropriate research.
2) If the police are doing all this for the reasons of revenue generation, where is the money? I'd like to see some research into how much money is raised, where it goes, etc. I'm sure it's not going in the police pension fund so presumably it does some good somewhere?
(If it means we have more community policing in the estate behind my house, or more beds in my local hospital, etc. then frankly I say it's a good idea at least in principle even if it's safety effect is only marginal).
3) Much of the "Speed does not kill" argument seems entirely self-serving. One rarely sees (and I note Brian's considered post is an exception here) any real interest in safety from the people arguing against speed limits and enforcement and one cannot help but thing that they are far more interested in getting to their destination as quickly as possible.
4) Once again we have a 100% incidence of responsible, careful drivers who are capable of exceeded the speed limits safely in the correct circumstances. Where are the people causing the accidents? Are they a different set of people entirely or are they, as I suspect, the sort of people who htink they are responsible, safe drivers capable of exceeding the speed limits when conditions permit?
5) One cannot go out for dinner these days without motorists carping on for hours about cameras and speed bumps. "I don't want to feel like a criminal just for getting in my car" my friend said, which was quite ironic as, owing to several bus lane misdemenaours in Hackney he, um, is a criminal. Yet as a cyclist my experience of riding around London is that it has got (subjectively) markedly safer in the last 10 years or so precisely becuase all my Chardonnay sipping friends (who are all responsible drivers who should be allowed to exceed the speed limit when conditions permit) are driving more slowly.
6) I don't have the figures to hand but I beleive that some 4-5000 people die on British roads every year. If that many people died on, say, the railways think how much fuss there would be and how much inconvenience people would endure in order to get that figure down by many orders of magnitude.
Matthew
1) If one accepts that speed limits have some benefical effect then arguning against their enforcement is patently wrong. Instead one should argue that the speed limits should be set at different levels and then enforced at that level. If, as is often quoted, speed has little ro no effect on most accidents, this should be an easy argument to win when backed with appropriate research.
2) If the police are doing all this for the reasons of revenue generation, where is the money? I'd like to see some research into how much money is raised, where it goes, etc. I'm sure it's not going in the police pension fund so presumably it does some good somewhere?
(If it means we have more community policing in the estate behind my house, or more beds in my local hospital, etc. then frankly I say it's a good idea at least in principle even if it's safety effect is only marginal).
3) Much of the "Speed does not kill" argument seems entirely self-serving. One rarely sees (and I note Brian's considered post is an exception here) any real interest in safety from the people arguing against speed limits and enforcement and one cannot help but thing that they are far more interested in getting to their destination as quickly as possible.
4) Once again we have a 100% incidence of responsible, careful drivers who are capable of exceeded the speed limits safely in the correct circumstances. Where are the people causing the accidents? Are they a different set of people entirely or are they, as I suspect, the sort of people who htink they are responsible, safe drivers capable of exceeding the speed limits when conditions permit?
5) One cannot go out for dinner these days without motorists carping on for hours about cameras and speed bumps. "I don't want to feel like a criminal just for getting in my car" my friend said, which was quite ironic as, owing to several bus lane misdemenaours in Hackney he, um, is a criminal. Yet as a cyclist my experience of riding around London is that it has got (subjectively) markedly safer in the last 10 years or so precisely becuase all my Chardonnay sipping friends (who are all responsible drivers who should be allowed to exceed the speed limit when conditions permit) are driving more slowly.
6) I don't have the figures to hand but I beleive that some 4-5000 people die on British roads every year. If that many people died on, say, the railways think how much fuss there would be and how much inconvenience people would endure in order to get that figure down by many orders of magnitude.
Matthew
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by John Sheridan
1) for enforcement purposes, I'd much rather have a 'black box' in the car
and in the event of an accident be required to prove that the speed I was
doing (above or below the limit) was safe for the prevailing conditions -
with the threat of a very long ban to if not safe.
2) not sure of the figures here but in NSW the amount of speeding revenue is
part of the state budget and they went into deficit a few years ago because
revenues didn't meet expectations.
3) really? So driving to the conditions - which could very well involve
driving well below the posted speed limit as I've already mentioned above -
is just trying to get to one's destination as quickly as possible?
4) If most accidents are rear-enders (and they are) then this is caused by a
combination of inattention and driving to close to the vehicle in front.
The next biggest cause of accidents is ignoring priority (turning/pulling in
front of someone). Again, caused by inattention. As for the people
causing accidents, maybe they're too embarrassed to speak up? Whoever they
are, they can think what they want but if they've caused an accident then
maybe a rethink is in order. If they've caused more than one accident then
they're just deluded (and should be sent for mandatory retraining. However,
see below)
5) re: carping on about cameras. It would be ok if they did it for the
right reason. That they make you pay more attention to your speedo than the
road ahead in what is supposedly an accident prone area can't be a good
thing. Also, if you're driving around London and aren't stuck in a huge
queue of traffic then in most places you should be doing less than 30mph
anyway. The only places anyone should be arguing for higher/variable limits
is where the limit is currently 60/70mph.
6) The figure is around 3500. The solution is simple - far stricter
testing (and regular retesting) of drivers. As I've said on another thread,
this will never be done because the economic cost of removing 50% of drivers
from our roads far outweighs a few thousand deaths each year (as far as the
beancounters are concerned). Here's a question, would you get in a plane
with a pilot trained to the same standard as required to obtain a driving
license?
and in the event of an accident be required to prove that the speed I was
doing (above or below the limit) was safe for the prevailing conditions -
with the threat of a very long ban to if not safe.
2) not sure of the figures here but in NSW the amount of speeding revenue is
part of the state budget and they went into deficit a few years ago because
revenues didn't meet expectations.
3) really? So driving to the conditions - which could very well involve
driving well below the posted speed limit as I've already mentioned above -
is just trying to get to one's destination as quickly as possible?
4) If most accidents are rear-enders (and they are) then this is caused by a
combination of inattention and driving to close to the vehicle in front.
The next biggest cause of accidents is ignoring priority (turning/pulling in
front of someone). Again, caused by inattention. As for the people
causing accidents, maybe they're too embarrassed to speak up? Whoever they
are, they can think what they want but if they've caused an accident then
maybe a rethink is in order. If they've caused more than one accident then
they're just deluded (and should be sent for mandatory retraining. However,
see below)
5) re: carping on about cameras. It would be ok if they did it for the
right reason. That they make you pay more attention to your speedo than the
road ahead in what is supposedly an accident prone area can't be a good
thing. Also, if you're driving around London and aren't stuck in a huge
queue of traffic then in most places you should be doing less than 30mph
anyway. The only places anyone should be arguing for higher/variable limits
is where the limit is currently 60/70mph.
6) The figure is around 3500. The solution is simple - far stricter
testing (and regular retesting) of drivers. As I've said on another thread,
this will never be done because the economic cost of removing 50% of drivers
from our roads far outweighs a few thousand deaths each year (as far as the
beancounters are concerned). Here's a question, would you get in a plane
with a pilot trained to the same standard as required to obtain a driving
license?
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by John Sheridan
who would you prefer on the road in a 30 zone: person A driving at 35mph
and paying attention or person B driving at 25mph, talking on the phone,
looking on the floor for lighter they've just dropped, thinking the current
radio station is a bit crap and they'd better change that, turning around to
yell at the kids in the back seat because they won't shut up, remembering
there's a speed camera up the road a bit and checking their speedo for the
100th time in the past mile, turning back to the kids because they're still
at it etc etc??? Who's more likely to have an accident and who's going to
going a whole lot faster in the event of said accident?
You can rest assured that the government does put a monetary figure on the
worth of a person and it's not a lot - the maximum for a 'bereavement claim' under the Fatal Accidents Act is £10K I believe.
Then if you consider the effects of removing 50% of drivers just on:
insurance companies
mechanics
oil companies
tyre companies
any firm selling automotive services
you could move on to doctors, nurses, physio, etc etc etc
you'll see that I'm talking about many billions of pounds in lost
revenue/taxes. That's without considering the flow on effects around the
economy .
Now you may not agree with this - and hopefully you can't from a
non-economic point of view - but ask yourself why it hasn't been done
already as it's such an obvious way of reducing road trauma. Even if you
say that all this testing is too difficult you could easily bring in a
'cause x accidents and you're off the road' rule.
and paying attention or person B driving at 25mph, talking on the phone,
looking on the floor for lighter they've just dropped, thinking the current
radio station is a bit crap and they'd better change that, turning around to
yell at the kids in the back seat because they won't shut up, remembering
there's a speed camera up the road a bit and checking their speedo for the
100th time in the past mile, turning back to the kids because they're still
at it etc etc??? Who's more likely to have an accident and who's going to
going a whole lot faster in the event of said accident?
You can rest assured that the government does put a monetary figure on the
worth of a person and it's not a lot - the maximum for a 'bereavement claim' under the Fatal Accidents Act is £10K I believe.
Then if you consider the effects of removing 50% of drivers just on:
insurance companies
mechanics
oil companies
tyre companies
any firm selling automotive services
you could move on to doctors, nurses, physio, etc etc etc
you'll see that I'm talking about many billions of pounds in lost
revenue/taxes. That's without considering the flow on effects around the
economy .
Now you may not agree with this - and hopefully you can't from a
non-economic point of view - but ask yourself why it hasn't been done
already as it's such an obvious way of reducing road trauma. Even if you
say that all this testing is too difficult you could easily bring in a
'cause x accidents and you're off the road' rule.
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by matthewr
"2) not sure of the figures here but in NSW the amount of speeding revenue is
part of the state budget and they went into deficit a few years ago because
revenues didn't meet expectations."
That's a good argument for electing someone else in NSW but not a very good argument for whether speeding fine revenue does any good or not.
"3) really? So driving to the conditions - which could very well involve
driving well below the posted speed limit as I've already mentioned above -
is just trying to get to one's destination as quickly as possible?"
Well obviously not no.
What I find unconvincing and disingenuous is the way many people complain about it "Not being about safety" when, in most cases, they seem far more motivated by their own impatience and selfishness than by safety. One suspects they would object to almost any measure that inconveniences them.
"and driving to close to the vehicle in front"
Which is of course a function of speed. And it's a lot easier to control people's speed than driving distances.
"that they make you pay more attention to your speedo than the
road ahead in what is supposedly an accident prone area can't be a good
thing"
If you can't monitor your speed without it causing you to crash then you should not be driving.
"The solution is simple - far stricter
testing (and regular retesting) of drivers"
Although better and more rigourous training is obviously a good thing I am not sure it's quite that simple.
For a start I think a lot of the problem is this idea that everyone believes that accidents are caused by "bad drivers" who are a group entirely separate from you and me. In fact I suspect that many accidents are caused by people who are entirely like you and me and, as often as not, are no doubt fond of pointing out how one should drive at the speed appropriate for the prevailing conditions not the posted speed limit and quoting from "Roadcraft" like they have a well thumbed copy by their bedside table. If, as I beleive, most accidents are caused by good drivers then while making drivers better will help it is probably not going to solve the problem.
Secondly most of the time when we do something in a car there isn't an accident and, as we do this sort of thing every day without any negative conseuqences, we conclude it is safe. This may be not be true and thus we rely on a system of rules -- including speed limits -- to maintain a high level of safety because the nature of driving (a routine, mostly safe activity) make our judegements unreliable. We are not trying to make it safe for someone to drive down a road at 40mph 99,999 out of 100,000 but for them to do so all of the time.
Or to put it another way, I am sure that you are a very good driver and approach driving with as much thought, care and so on as one would expect. But I am equally sure that sometime in the next month you will do something that could potentially cause an accident -- some momentary lapse of attention say. This will almost certainly not result in an accident but it's doesn't change the fact that you are, potentially, capabele of causing an accident despite being a "good driver".
Hence as well as (and quite possibly in preference to) better trained drivers, you want a system that mitigagtes against the inevitable mistakes that we all make. This will (probably, I am not an expert) include speed limits, speed humps, enforcement, etc.
"The figure is around 3500"
Which is something approaching carnage and an appalling figure for something that, more often than not, turns out to be someones fault.
Matthew
part of the state budget and they went into deficit a few years ago because
revenues didn't meet expectations."
That's a good argument for electing someone else in NSW but not a very good argument for whether speeding fine revenue does any good or not.
"3) really? So driving to the conditions - which could very well involve
driving well below the posted speed limit as I've already mentioned above -
is just trying to get to one's destination as quickly as possible?"
Well obviously not no.
What I find unconvincing and disingenuous is the way many people complain about it "Not being about safety" when, in most cases, they seem far more motivated by their own impatience and selfishness than by safety. One suspects they would object to almost any measure that inconveniences them.
"and driving to close to the vehicle in front"
Which is of course a function of speed. And it's a lot easier to control people's speed than driving distances.
"that they make you pay more attention to your speedo than the
road ahead in what is supposedly an accident prone area can't be a good
thing"
If you can't monitor your speed without it causing you to crash then you should not be driving.
"The solution is simple - far stricter
testing (and regular retesting) of drivers"
Although better and more rigourous training is obviously a good thing I am not sure it's quite that simple.
For a start I think a lot of the problem is this idea that everyone believes that accidents are caused by "bad drivers" who are a group entirely separate from you and me. In fact I suspect that many accidents are caused by people who are entirely like you and me and, as often as not, are no doubt fond of pointing out how one should drive at the speed appropriate for the prevailing conditions not the posted speed limit and quoting from "Roadcraft" like they have a well thumbed copy by their bedside table. If, as I beleive, most accidents are caused by good drivers then while making drivers better will help it is probably not going to solve the problem.
Secondly most of the time when we do something in a car there isn't an accident and, as we do this sort of thing every day without any negative conseuqences, we conclude it is safe. This may be not be true and thus we rely on a system of rules -- including speed limits -- to maintain a high level of safety because the nature of driving (a routine, mostly safe activity) make our judegements unreliable. We are not trying to make it safe for someone to drive down a road at 40mph 99,999 out of 100,000 but for them to do so all of the time.
Or to put it another way, I am sure that you are a very good driver and approach driving with as much thought, care and so on as one would expect. But I am equally sure that sometime in the next month you will do something that could potentially cause an accident -- some momentary lapse of attention say. This will almost certainly not result in an accident but it's doesn't change the fact that you are, potentially, capabele of causing an accident despite being a "good driver".
Hence as well as (and quite possibly in preference to) better trained drivers, you want a system that mitigagtes against the inevitable mistakes that we all make. This will (probably, I am not an expert) include speed limits, speed humps, enforcement, etc.
"The figure is around 3500"
Which is something approaching carnage and an appalling figure for something that, more often than not, turns out to be someones fault.
Matthew
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by kevinrt
If all drivers were competant and couteous then a 70 mph speed limit should pose no problem.
These competant drivers should be able to assess the road situation, observe lane discipline and maintain safe breaking distances. There's no reason why they should end up nose-to-tail at 67 mph, that would just show that they were incompetant. If that's the case, do you want them driving at 80-90mph?
I suggest that problems arise when different drivers set themselves individual rules (rather than following one set) and are then surprised when another driver doesn't behave the way they expect.
These competant drivers should be able to assess the road situation, observe lane discipline and maintain safe breaking distances. There's no reason why they should end up nose-to-tail at 67 mph, that would just show that they were incompetant. If that's the case, do you want them driving at 80-90mph?
I suggest that problems arise when different drivers set themselves individual rules (rather than following one set) and are then surprised when another driver doesn't behave the way they expect.
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Paul Ranson
I'm opposed to robotic rule enforcement on principle.
A typically pinko absurdam.
It's very difficult to drive at a constant speed without reference to a speedometer, and when one's working within a couple of mph margin it's very difficult indeed. It's quite easy to drive at about the right speed with reference to the traffic and the environment however this of course is a good way to lose your licence. So the instinctive reaction on seeing a speed camera or 'Talivan' is to jump on the brakes, check the speedo, then look around for other danger. This is human nature and there's no point bewailing it.
I think there's a connection between the move towards automated and civilian managed speed enforcement and away from traffic police and the rise in road deaths.
And I think the answer is more imaginative road engineering. Less pointless roadside furniture, less clear road markings (nothing slows people down like uncertainty), more traffic policeman encouraging better driving practices. And some mechanism for ensuring that uninsured or unlicenced drivers \re not able to get away with driving is surely not outside the capability of even UK bureaucrats?
Paul
quote:
If you can't monitor your speed without it causing you to crash then you should not be driving.
A typically pinko absurdam.
It's very difficult to drive at a constant speed without reference to a speedometer, and when one's working within a couple of mph margin it's very difficult indeed. It's quite easy to drive at about the right speed with reference to the traffic and the environment however this of course is a good way to lose your licence. So the instinctive reaction on seeing a speed camera or 'Talivan' is to jump on the brakes, check the speedo, then look around for other danger. This is human nature and there's no point bewailing it.
I think there's a connection between the move towards automated and civilian managed speed enforcement and away from traffic police and the rise in road deaths.
And I think the answer is more imaginative road engineering. Less pointless roadside furniture, less clear road markings (nothing slows people down like uncertainty), more traffic policeman encouraging better driving practices. And some mechanism for ensuring that uninsured or unlicenced drivers \re not able to get away with driving is surely not outside the capability of even UK bureaucrats?
Paul
Posted on: 24 August 2004 by Nigel Cavendish
"2) If the police are doing all this for the reasons of revenue generation, where is the money? I'd like to see some research into how much money is raised, where it goes, etc. I'm sure it's not going in the police pension fund so presumably it does some good somewhere?
(If it means we have more community policing in the estate behind my house, or more beds in my local hospital, etc. then frankly I say it's a good idea at least in principle even if it's safety effect is only marginal)."
The revenue raised by speed cameras, for example, is "hypothecated" that is it is supposed to be used for traffic crime initiatives like driver education, more speed cameras etc. It cannot be used for other policing activities.
More generally, speed limits are not the issue in fact they cloud the issue. Accidents occur when people exceed the limit and when they do not - high speed crashes to minor bumps in car parks. What caues accidents, apart from odd instances of mechanical failure, is people not driving appropriately or not paying attention.
"Never drive so fast that you cannot stop in the distance you can see to be clear" is something I remember from the highway code - if you are tailgating then that is your responsibility not that of the driver you are following. If you are driving too fast for the road or weather conditions - that is your responsibility.
If you have run into another vehicle or person, then it is probably your fault.
cheers
Nigel
(If it means we have more community policing in the estate behind my house, or more beds in my local hospital, etc. then frankly I say it's a good idea at least in principle even if it's safety effect is only marginal)."
The revenue raised by speed cameras, for example, is "hypothecated" that is it is supposed to be used for traffic crime initiatives like driver education, more speed cameras etc. It cannot be used for other policing activities.
More generally, speed limits are not the issue in fact they cloud the issue. Accidents occur when people exceed the limit and when they do not - high speed crashes to minor bumps in car parks. What caues accidents, apart from odd instances of mechanical failure, is people not driving appropriately or not paying attention.
"Never drive so fast that you cannot stop in the distance you can see to be clear" is something I remember from the highway code - if you are tailgating then that is your responsibility not that of the driver you are following. If you are driving too fast for the road or weather conditions - that is your responsibility.
If you have run into another vehicle or person, then it is probably your fault.
cheers
Nigel