£180,000 speding fine . . .

[Dolph]

Two points

A) it is small but not tiny about 2% isn't it. and ~5% if you include excessive speed in adverse conditions.

But the excessive speed is that speed within the limit, so it should not be included.

B) Just because speed is not the main cause, does not mean that speed does not drastically increase damage and harm in crashes. The chance of damage to property/others is increased as is the risk to yourself.

As I said do you really think speeding should be legal?

Treat the causes of accidents and speed becomes less of an issue. I don't think speed limits should exist on motorways/dual carriageways or national speed limit roads in their current form, because they serve no real road safety purpose. Going back before cameras, when police used to enforce 'speeding' laws, the majority of the enforcement was actually more of an 'exceeding the limit and driving like a plank' variety which was much more appropriate, and why speeding convictions used to be taken much more seriously by insurers as they had road safety implications. Even now, this is how the actual road officers tend to work.

Arbitary limits at the side of the road have no real road safety impact in most cases, there are better approaches to improving road safety and managing traffic flow, the only exception is in built up areas, but even there better engineering and jaywalking laws would do more in many cases than ever more stringent restrictions on speed.

 

[Glaucus]

snip.

There's a difference between changing speed limits and removing them. DO you think less accidents would be caused if people tried doing 120mph down the motorway, with the level of congestion we have these days.

Speed has an effect and does cause accidents and should be regulated. I agree it is not well regulated at the moment.

 

[Kenai]

there are better approaches to improving road safety and managing traffic flow, the only exception is in built up areas, but even there better engineering and jaywalking laws would do more in many cases

You know, if we took to means tested fining like the Swiss we could probably finance such things easier

 

[The Running Man]

The point with speeding laws is that they nearly are victimless crimes totally, given the impact that exceeding the speed limit has on accident causes

However, that doesn't mean that 'victimless' crimes cannot exist, it all depends on the evidence that justifies the controlling of the risk. That the evidence for controlling the risk of speeding is minimal is irrelevant to the principle.

but arent you letting you're 'i speed, its okay no-one ever gets hurt and the fines and absurd' prejudice take over here? speeding is illegal, it has potential to cause nasty injuries. Whether you agree or disagree getting hit by someone at 85 mph vs 50mph (or lesser given slow down potential) will be a worse outcome (and dont pull the old, 'yea but 50 in a austin metro is far more dangerous than 85 in a ferrari' either because thats not going to work, we dont have variable laws based upon equipment.

The potential to damage in this case is absolutely minimal though... That is the flaw of this approach and therefore this punishment. The chances of having an accident solely due to exceeding the speed limit are tiny.

In your opinion...the locals who might have witnessed the event may think differently. this is not a race track.

If he had hit someone, it would have almost certainly been due to another cause other than exceeding the speed limit,

again, thats pure bias speculation. how can you prove that? or that speeding wasnt the most pertinent factor?

you take a driving licence as a priviledge, its not a human right. you drive through switzerland and blitz it at 85 through small towns, your also a millionaire who does this on a regular basis...

how can the courts fairly attempt to 'dissuade' you from doing it again without leveraging a huge fine.

please explain:

 

[Dolph]

There's a difference between changing speed limits and removing them. DO you think less accidents would be caused if people tried doing 120mph down the motorway, with the level of congestion we have these days.

Less accidents is not the question. Do I think there would be appreciably more? No. People already do 120mph on the motorway regularly, but most drivers assess the situation correctly and only do it appropriately. The idea that the posted limit has any bearing on safety needs to be forgotten because it's simply not true.

Speed has an effect and does cause accidents and should be regulated. I agree it is not well regulated at the moment.

I fully support regulating inappropriate speed. I argue that inappropriate speed has nothing to do with the arbitrary number on the sign at the side of the road.

 

[Dolph]

but arent you letting you're 'i speed, its okay no-one ever gets hurt and the fines and absurd' prejudice take over here? speeding is illegal, it has potential to cause nasty injuries. Whether you agree or disagree getting hit by someone at 85 mph vs 50mph (or lesser given slow down potential) will be a worse outcome (and dont pull the old, 'yea but 50 in a austin metro is far more dangerous than 85 in a ferrari' either because thats not going to work, we dont have variable laws based upon equipment.

Keep on ignoring evidence, it's worked for Labour after all...

In your opinion...the locals who might have witnessed the event may think differently. this is not a race track.

Argumentum ad populum?

Again, thats pure bias speculation. how can you prove that? or that speeding wasnt the most pertinent factor?

UK government statistics show that it is very unlikely to cause an accident through speeding. They are just also conviently ignored because the population are idiots and want random laws passed and enforced even if they aren't doing anything and we have no protection from such rampant idiocy.

you take a driving licence as a priviledge, its not a human right. you drive through switzerland and blitz it at 85 through small towns, your also a millionaire who does this on a regular basis...

Should we revoke privileges for no valid reason?

how can the courts fairly attempt to 'dissuade' you from doing it again without leveraging a huge fine.

please explain:

Why should I need dissuading from doing something that has very minor road safety implications, and indeed can frequently have none at all depending on the appropriateness of the behaviour to the conditions?

 

[Glaucus]

No. People already do 120mph on the motorway regularly, but most drivers assess the situation correctly and only do it appropriately. .

Some people, I think the stats would change by a fair amount if a significant portion start doing it. Trouble is not everyone can judge, you need such numbers. Weren't the original speed limits set on what the majority of people drove at?

You also have difference in speed, Lots of cars can't do a 120.

 

[Dolph]

Some people, I think the stats would change by a fair amount if a significant portion start doing it. Trouble is not everyone can judge, you need such numbers. Weren't the original speed limits set on what the majority of people drove at?

No, the figure was pretty much plucked out of the air as a temporary, panic measure in 1965 following a bad winter (accidents in fog on the new motorways) and some incidents of very high speed (but minimal accident) driving on the M1 (including by Jaguar test drivers). A lot of cars couldn't do 70mph when the limit was introduced, and braking from that speed was horrific in most of the cars.

You also have difference in speed, Lots of cars can't do a 120.

Just because you have a higher (or advisory) limit it doesn't mean that everyone will barrel along at silly speeds, most drivers, in the absence of a limit, will drive at the speed they feel comfortable at for the road and conditions, which (looking at history and research) tends to be around 80-85mph on the average motorway. Better lane discipline also goes a long way to minimise the dangers of different speed capabilities.

 

[lunarwolf]

didn't know there were so many Bolsheviks here.

180k is just excessive, and government trying to get money.

I think a 1 month driving ban should have been given to him as he was a repeat offender.

 

[The Running Man]

Keep on ignoring evidence, it's worked for Labour after all...


Argumentum ad populum?



UK government statistics show that it is very unlikely to cause an accident through speeding. They are just also conviently ignored because the population are idiots and want random laws passed and enforced even if they aren't doing anything and we have no protection from such rampant idiocy.

Should we revoke privileges for no valid reason?

dude, how can you deny that hitting someone from 85mph to hitting someone at 50 will not make a difference? given that cars slow down in a non linear fashion, doing 85 to a stop will take more than 2x longer to stop from than say 42.5mph...

that is not circumstantial evidence, it is quite widely known...how about you stop ignoring these facts and base your argument on what really happens when people speed? and the effects it can have if you hit someone...?

its like saying that drink driving is fine...its a victimless crime...until you actually hit someone? how many ppl used to drink drive here, in the US in Safrica during the 60's, 70's etc it was seen as almost normal behaviour!

if a drunk driver hits you at 40 and a speeding motorist who is NOT drunk hits you at 80mph which causes the most damage?

Why should I need dissuading from doing something that has very minor road safety implications, and indeed can frequently have none at all depending on the appropriateness of the behaviour to the conditions?

because its illegal bro.

is shop theft a crime? it is almost victimless as the shop simply claims back on insurance. no problems right?

If you read government statistics you will see that 3% of road accidents are caused SOLEY by speeding...

how many times do you think the police will prosecute only for speeding when they can you you for DWDCA, or driving dangerously, or if you were drinking but caused an accident whilst breaking the speed limit...

speeding goes hand in hand with all the other major traffic infractions its just that because we are so lenient on it (points and fines) that CPS will prefer to presecute under another more punishable offence.

so yes the statistics that you quote are skewed massively towards how the police/cps choose to prosecute.

 

[Dolph]

dude, how can you deny that hitting someone from 85mph to hitting someone at 50 will not make a difference? given that cars slow down in a non linear fashion, doing 85 to a stop will take more than 2x longer to stop from than say 42.5mph...

The issue is not the speed you hit them at, but whether you hit them. Exceeding the speed limit has nothing to do with 97% of accidents, therefore targetting speeding cannot prevent 97% of accidents.

that is not circumstantial evidence, it is quite widely known...how about you stop ignoring these facts and base your argument on what really happens when people speed? and the effects it can have if you hit someone...?

I'd prefer to target the reasons why they hit people and prevent that if it's all the same.

its like saying that drink driving is fine...its a victimless crime...until you actually hit someone? how many ppl used to drink drive here, in the US in Safrica during the 60's, 70's etc it was seen as almost normal behaviour!

Drink driving is somewhat different, in that there is a direct, demonstrable relationship between blood alcohol level and risk of accident. There is not the same relationship where speeding is concerned.

if a drunk driver hits you at 40 and a speeding motorist who is NOT drunk hits you at 80mph which causes the most damage?

The one doing 80mph. Now what is the chance of being hit by the driver because he is drunk, or hit by the driver because they are speeding? (Hint, out of 100 accidents, 16 would be because of drunkenness and 3 due to exceeding the speed limit)

because its illegal bro.

That is an appeal to authority, not an argument. If the law is badly written or ill advised, does the fact that is it the law suddenly make that go away?

is shop theft a crime? it is almost victimless as the shop simply claims back on insurance. no problems right?

We all pay through increased insurance premiums and shop prices. Not to mention it violates basic property rights.

If you read government statistics you will see that 3% of road accidents are caused SOLEY by speeding...

Exactly, which is why targetting speeding is stupid.

how many times do you think the police will prosecute only for speeding when they can you you for DWDCA, or driving dangerously, or if you were drinking but caused an accident whilst breaking the speed limit...

Frequently, speeding is an absolute offence so a conviction is pretty much guaranteed, DWDCA or dangerous driving are much harder to convict for at the moment...

However, that is factored into the 3% calculation if you review the methodology of the report

speeding goes hand in hand with all the other major traffic infractions its just that because we are so lenient on it (points and fines) that CPS will prefer to presecute under another more punishable offence.

so yes the statistics that you quote are skewed massively towards how the police/cps choose to prosecute.

No they aren't, they aren't based on prosecutions, and they include primary and secondary causes as part of the analysis weighted into the final statistic...

 

[miniyazz]

So.. person A works for 10 hours a day and earns £400/week. Person B works for 5 hours a day and spends the other 5 hours watching TV, and earns £200/week. Supposing person A was fined £200 for speeding. Do you really believe person B should only be fined £100 for the exact same offence - simply because he's lazy?

In absolute values he is being fined less, but in theory the impact on his life would be similar - 50% of his weekly salary, thus it would be a similar level of financial impact to both people and thus provide a similar level of a deterrent to commiting an offence.

Ideally, deterrents shouldn't be based on financial punishments for the very reason that this argument exists but so long as they do, ultimately they would be more effective if they provide similar deterrent to everyone rather than enabling people to care less about breaking the law the richer they get.

License points for example are a much better system - getting 3 points on your license is quarter of the way to losing it whether you are on JSA, £18k a year or £18m a year and thus it impacts and deters all offenders equally.

But person A would have to work for 25 hours to pay off his fine, whereas person B would have to work for only 12.5 hours to pay off his fine. The financial impact to both people would be the same - but unfair, because the actual impact would greatly discriminate against the harder worker.

License points are certainly better when they are applicable, agreed.

 

[Dr Who]

The issue is not the speed you hit them at, but whether you hit them. Exceeding the speed limit has nothing to do with 97% of accidents, therefore targetting speeding cannot prevent 97% of accidents.

True, but through a village, how much more likely is a pedestrian to not notice the car approaching and step out in to the road?

85mph through a village seems a bit DAF to me.

 

[Dolph]

True, but through a village, how much more likely is a pedestrian to not notice the car approaching and step out in to the road?

85mph through a village seems a bit DAF to me.

That would depend on the time of day and the location within the village, surely, which is information that isn't available about this particular case.

I would agree that 85mph through a village would seem daft, but then I recall driving through rural suffolk where being in the village limits means a 30mph limit, even when there are no houses for half a mile from the road, or where the pedestrian area is fenced from the road and served with subways and footbridges, and think you can't always be so judgemental as it may not be what it seems.

 

[Dr Who]

That would depend on the time of day and the location within the village, surely, which is information that isn't available about this particular case.

I would agree that 85mph through a village would seem daft, but then I recall driving through rural suffolk where being in the village limits means a 30mph limit, even when there are no houses for half a mile from the road, or where the pedestrian area is fenced from the road and served with subways and footbridges, and think you can't always be so judgemental as it may not be what it seems.

I would agree, but it's not often speed checks are done in the small hours