Government to target excess speed and drugs & driving
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
The whole thing about road safety is a bit of a farce really.
It's hugely important for the economy to have a flexible, mobile workforce, which means allowing people on the roads.
If safety was truly a worry, there would be far stricter tests, mandatory re-testing, minimum hours, raise the age to 21 and suchlike, but then you'd have a whole bunch of people, the crap drivers who should never be allowed on the road, who are restricted to their locality in respect of employment. In a way, the deaths on the road are just the price we pay for having a flexible workforce.
In terms of enforcement by traffic cop, that would be fine, but it would cost a shed-load of money to properly cover the UK road network to the extent of 'eliminating' most dangerous driving which I'm not sure people would be willing to pay, plus 'careless/reckless' driving isn't something which can be easily proved and could completely clog up the Courts and involve horrendous costs for what would be minimal benefit.
What speed limits and cameras offer is a cost-neutral (or even revenue generating) means of enforcing a strict limit, which is in place because it removes any doubt and can be easily and undefendably proven by way of a simple production of two time-stamped photographs.
Most road safety campaigns are just to placate the public, until every driver fully understands they are in control of a 1 ton lump of steel travelling at high speeds and so they should pay &^$%ing attention, nothing much will change.
It's hugely important for the economy to have a flexible, mobile workforce, which means allowing people on the roads.
If safety was truly a worry, there would be far stricter tests, mandatory re-testing, minimum hours, raise the age to 21 and suchlike, but then you'd have a whole bunch of people, the crap drivers who should never be allowed on the road, who are restricted to their locality in respect of employment. In a way, the deaths on the road are just the price we pay for having a flexible workforce.
In terms of enforcement by traffic cop, that would be fine, but it would cost a shed-load of money to properly cover the UK road network to the extent of 'eliminating' most dangerous driving which I'm not sure people would be willing to pay, plus 'careless/reckless' driving isn't something which can be easily proved and could completely clog up the Courts and involve horrendous costs for what would be minimal benefit.
What speed limits and cameras offer is a cost-neutral (or even revenue generating) means of enforcing a strict limit, which is in place because it removes any doubt and can be easily and undefendably proven by way of a simple production of two time-stamped photographs.
Most road safety campaigns are just to placate the public, until every driver fully understands they are in control of a 1 ton lump of steel travelling at high speeds and so they should pay &^$%ing attention, nothing much will change.
Really, I've pointed out that a Mini and a Vauxhall could do more than 70MPH, your qualatative statement that they would "stuggle" is a complete guess as I bet you've never driver either!
There were loads of cars that could do far more than 70MPH in 1959 and earlier!
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Now, I suspect that that is where it gets a bit difficult. "More traffic police" is going to cost more money and I think that that is where the first problem will arise. Added to that, I suspect that successfully prosecuting 'careless or reckless' drivers is a whole lot less straightforward than successfully prosecuting speeding drivers.
However, I would certainly support proposals to use mobile surveillance cameras at accident black spots and at random points on motorways and for drivers to be prosecuted for overtaking on the inside, tailgating, using mobile 'phones, drifting about on the road, not observing proper lane discipline and generally driving carelessly, recklessly or inconsiderately. Perhaps if people believed that there was an increased likelihood of getting caught and prosecuted, they wouldn't drive so selfishly and stupidly
A driver in Burnley killed a young girl a couple of years back. If I remember correctly he had no license or insurance etc, got around £1k fine and a small prison sentence which her servd for about 2 weeks then not long after was caught speeding or something and recieved another pezzy fine! He's preobably still out there killing young girls now.
The problem we have is most people do not know how to react to adverse conditions. As petrol heads we can react well to failed brakes and loss of grip. We don't depend on them and we can expect and control these conditions becasue it is something we are all interested in. You can gaurantee that the motorways around manchester have some sort of accident and probably a fatality if we get a bit of hard rain in a morning becasue people don't care its tipping it down and do 100+ regardless. The car can handle it, the tyres are effective when you're doing 100+ in the rain but when it comes to someone up ahead doing < 70 passing cars doing < 50 in the other two lanes the car aint gonna stop quick enough. Some people swerve, some just hit the car. It's unlucky it happens, but the driver just isn't aware of how to react to the situation and they make it much worse.
More training, like they showed on Top Gear, is what is needed, along with a better educated traffic police presence.
The problem we have is most people do not know how to react to adverse conditions. As petrol heads we can react well to failed brakes and loss of grip. We don't depend on them and we can expect and control these conditions becasue it is something we are all interested in. You can gaurantee that the motorways around manchester have some sort of accident and probably a fatality if we get a bit of hard rain in a morning becasue people don't care its tipping it down and do 100+ regardless. The car can handle it, the tyres are effective when you're doing 100+ in the rain but when it comes to someone up ahead doing < 70 passing cars doing < 50 in the other two lanes the car aint gonna stop quick enough. Some people swerve, some just hit the car. It's unlucky it happens, but the driver just isn't aware of how to react to the situation and they make it much worse.
More training, like they showed on Top Gear, is what is needed, along with a better educated traffic police presence.
You pointed out that a brand spanking new one straight off the line that year could just about do over 70mph if all the conditions were perfect, which is, I would say, what struggling means.
Yes there were sports cars that could go faster, note my use of the word most.
A 1956 Ford Consul MkII could do 80 mph, do you want me to keep going, I guess that's fairly representative car that would be on the road in 1959.
I'm sure it wasn't the fastest non sports car in 1956!
1956 Vauxhall Cresta had a top speed of 82 mph
Last edited:
I'm guessing you don't remember how speeding laws used to be used by the traffic police (and still do if they aren't using cameras). Although the law is written as an absolute offence (ie there's very little that can get you off in court), it used to be enforced by the police in a discretionary manner. It's the reason why having points on your licence used to have a much more signficant effect on your insurance premium than it does now, because having points for speeding didn't mean 'exceeding the limit' so much as 'exceeding the limit and driving like a pillock'.
A return to such a system would achieve far more for road safety than the current approach of '70mph is fine, angels and marshmallows protect you, 71mph means you're going to hell, fire and brimstone, the road surface grows spikes' etc.
However, I would certainly support proposals to use mobile surveillance cameras at accident black spots and at random points on motorways and for drivers to be prosecuted for overtaking on the inside, tailgating, using mobile 'phones, drifting about on the road, not observing proper lane discipline and generally driving carelessly, recklessly or inconsiderately. Perhaps if people believed that there was an increased likelihood of getting caught and prosecuted, they wouldn't drive so selfishly and stupidly
Don't use cameras, use officers, as they can make a much better call about what is and is not appropriate than cameras ever can. Cameras should provide evidence to support prosecution, not evidence to decide to prosecute.
So what do you think a car whose top speed once was 80mph would be able to do when it was a few years old? Do you think it might struggle to do 70mph in imperfect conditions when fully laden?
I have no idea and neither do you, why does it have to be fully laden!
Your statement that "most" cars would "struggle" to do 70MPH in 1959 when the first motorways were built just isn't true.
Last edited:
When the motorways first opened people used them to go on trips (except for the small minority that used them to test what their cars could do) rather than daily use - thus they'd have people and stuff with them.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
You old sentimentalist you.
I suspect that you are talking about a mythical Arcadian past when coppers would give naughty gentlemen a clip around the ear, a stern word or two and send them on their chastened way, wiser and determined to sin no more - Dixon of Dock Green wasn't it?
I'm sure we would all love to return to such a time - sadly, it is nothing more than an unrealistic dream. In the meantime, we should do everything we can to use 21st century technology to save lives and enforce the laws of the land as efficiently as possible.
Yeah I think so, my first car was a 1961 Mini and that could do over 70MPH in 1988
(I was stopped by the law doing 75MPH)You old sentimentalist you.
I suspect that you are talking about a mythical Arcadian past when coppers would give naughty gentlemen a clip around the ear, a stern word or two and send them on their chastened way, wiser and determined to sin no more - Dixon of Dock Green wasn't it?
Not really, I've had it myself where I've been congratulated on my driving but reminded of the limits... They were perfectly happy I was driving safely.
This was only a few years ago.
I agree with you about saving lives, which is why I disagree with you on 'enforcing the laws of the land'. Laws of the land should be about safety and reducing social harm, as should their enforcement. Speeding laws as enforced at the moment fail that test, and therefore the enforcement must change.
Abolish motorway speed limits, it would reduce congestion
Annoyingly, the limit outside my school was (and I think it still is) 40. Ridiculous as someone was knocked over recently and the council said that until there's a fatality nothing can be done about it to change the speed limit. That's pathetic.
Annoyingly, the limit outside my school was (and I think it still is) 40. Ridiculous as someone was knocked over recently and the council said that until there's a fatality nothing can be done about it to change the speed limit. That's pathetic.
Abolish motorway speed limits, it would reduce congestion
Annoyingly, the limit outside my school was (and I think it still is) 40. Ridiculous as someone was knocked over recently and the council said that until there's a fatality nothing can be done about it to change the speed limit. That's pathetic.
What's the point of changing the speed limit? Speed limits don't magically make accidents less likely?
Building a footbridge and railing the road would be much more effective if you wanted to prevent pedestrian casulties.
Having a limit of 40 outside a school means there will be people doing at least 40 and not allowing enough time to slow down due to unaware/stupid kids walking out in the road. All the other schools in the area were limited to 20, some even had speedhumps so I think it a bit bizarre that my school is on a 40mph road.
Unaware/stupid kids are not a driver problem solvable by altering speed limits. Solving the problem of kids getting hit by cars very rarely involves targetting drivers...
As I said, if you want to prevent accidents, seperate the kids and the cars. Have the school discipline anyone who refuses to use the bridge/subway (my school used to do this, we had a subway under a main road, anyone caught not using it but running across the road instead was disciplined for it).
Alternatively, encouraging an understanding among drivers of appropriate speeds (something the current focus on speeding doesn't do) as opposed to speed limits will also go some way to fixing the problem. A school does not require full time low limits. At most it could require a limit alteration during school hours.
I can see where you're coming from and agree with you that it's a good idea, in fact I seem to recall there was a partition to have something done like that a while ago but it nothing ever came from it. However, in the short term I think lowering the speed limit outside the school would give a lot of people peace of mind etc.
It does?
