Speeding should be treated by motorists as every bit as socially unacceptable as drink driving, cocaine use or committing grievous bodily harm, says the police and crime commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Alison Hernandez.
Hernandez’s comments, published this week as an opinion piece in Devon Live, come after local motorist George Peck complained to the press after he received two speeding fines during the same journey, for travelling at 36 and 37mph in a 30mph zone on the A379 near Plymouth, both in the space of two minutes.
70-year-old Audi driver Peck told Plymouth Live earlier this month: “I couldn’t believe they wouldn’t agree that it was one offence, two minutes apart. Surely they would understand that that was the same offence, just two minutes later. I understood that having exceeded the speed limit once I was due for a summons, but I couldn’t believe I was due for two.
“It seemed to me the system was wrong if that was happening. If somebody gets caught by one, they’re almost certainly going to get caught by the other.
“I just think it’s a great pity when we’re supposed to, and want to, support the police and their efforts, they can’t show a little bit of common sense when dealing with what is a relatively minor offence. I can’t believe it does anything except rub people’s backs up the wrong way.”
> Do lower speed limits make you feel safer on the roads?
Responding to Peck’s complaints – and his view that speeding constitutes a “minor” offence – Conservative politician Hernandez, who has served as Devon and Cornwall’s police and crime commissioner since 2016, wrote: “There is something about motoring offences that society still thinks of as socially acceptable.
“You couldn’t imagine someone complaining to the press, with their picture and name published, that they had been caught too many times by police with cocaine on them, or that over-zealous officers had insisted on charging them each time they committed grievous bodily harm.
“These average speed cameras are there for a reason. People live on these roads and are at risk from speeding drivers in an area with multiple obstacles. The cameras are there with the consent of the communities they protect.
“And, of course, there’s a simple way to avoid getting caught speeding.”
> Police across UK launch three-week blitz on speeding drivers to keep cyclists and others safe
Hernandez, who says that “there are far too many deaths” on Devon and Cornwall’s roads, continued: “Appeals for clemency by drivers who flout the law and put others at risk are likely to fall on deaf ears when they reach Devon and Cornwall’s roads police officers. That’s because these poor officers had to knock on 47 doors last year to tell families that a loved one was never coming home.
“The tragedy is that most roads casualties will have been avoidable. And those who argue that they can drive safely at speed are simply wrong. Excess speed is a contributory factor in one in three crashes and can be the difference between life and death.
As the UK’s police forces near the end of a three-week speed enforcement operation, led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, Hernandez concluded: “For the sakes of all of those who have lost a loved one all members of society, whether they are drivers or not, this week I will be asking you to do your bit to make speeding every bit as unacceptable as drink driving.
“And until there are no deaths on our roads, I will support action that ultimately takes licences away from the irresponsible and reckless, and make no apologies for it.”
77 thoughts on ““Speeding should be every bit as unacceptable as drink driving,” argues police and crime commissioner”
She’s not wrong.
She’s not wrong.
But the Audi driver is, in
But the Audi driver is, in every way.
ktache wrote:
Exactly this! Peck has highlighted what most drivers think of the rules of the road, selectively picking and choosing what suits them. Why else are there so many mobile phone users? People eating cornflakes whilst driving along? There was a case yesterday, some driver hit a cyclist and they had the nerve to say “I was just driving, they came out of nowhere”. JUST driving? Like its some innocent harmless carefree hobby. Nobody takes driving seriously, plenty don’t even bother with a test or insurance.
I’ve got a cost saving
I’ve got a cost saving suggestion for the Department of Transport. Ban speed camera signs, ban making speed cameras visible.
There should be the expectation that being caught speeding anywhere is fair game. The very concept that it is unfair to be caught speeding, for what is an absolute offence, is bizarre and shows the inappropriate level of influence the car lobby has had on UK law enforcement.
“for” transport
“for” transport
Not wrong, just out of date.
Not wrong, just out of date.
I’ve got a cost saving
I’ve got a cost saving suggestion for the Department of Transport. Ban speed camera signs, ban making speed cameras visible
You would also need to ban the publication of camera locations, which might not be easy.
Just get rid of the fixed
Just get rid of the fixed cameras and make them all mobile; get it into people’s heads that they can be caught speeding anywhere, anytime. If anyone wants all the possible locations then fine, every quarter of a mile on every road; just don’t speed at any of those locations and you’ll avoid being caught.
Bentrider wrote:
And do not publish the locations of mobile cameras for the next week, as my local paper does.
Also, get rid of this BS of
Also, get rid of this BS of allowing people to have more than 12 points on their licence without a ban. Its almost like we are apologising to people who drive dangerously for suggesting its their fault they wouldn’t be able to work or provide for their family. If you cared that much, you would drive safely. Perhaps people who drive dangerously shouldn’t have their “right” to drive take precidence over everyone elses right to not be injured or killed on our roads.
the one that always perplexes
the one that always perplexes for it having the highest number of offences across Norfolk and Suffolk, and its painted green fwiw because its in a AONB, is Stratford St Mary, 15,263 offences in 3 years (during the lockdown period too) and its set to 70mph.
But the point of sign posting
But the point of sign posting a speed camera is not so much to catch people as to encourage them to adhere to the speed limit.
Removing signage will catch more people yes, but it won’t potentially stop an accident there and then like a sign posted speed camera might.
That’s fundamanetally
That’s fundamanetally accepting speeding is normal practice. It is noticeable that where people believe they will be caught speeding, they will adhere to speed limits whether there are actual cameras or not. Therefore, have lots of enforcement without fixed cameras or signs, so people believe that they will be caught at any time any where, will be more effective over a grater stretch of road than a single fixed point. In fact, I know there are places where there are many speed camera warning signs but there are rarely any speed cameras. So we are in a position where you need a speed limit and a second set of speed camera warning signs to implement a speed limit effectively. If you remove the need to advertise that speed limits might be enforced, you’ve saved a pot of money and a few hi viz jackets lurking by the road will soon reinforce the limit, even if the result is whining about the unfairness of it all.
For example, I have never met anyone who has ever been caught on an average speed camera on the motorway, there are no flashes, those yellow poles may never ever have been activated, but compliance is 99% within an mph or 2. Why do average speed camaras work when fixed cameras don’t (and drivers complain of the damgers of fixed cameras causing braking).
Fundamnetally, it is about breaking the culture of speeding as acceptable, so the mere presence of a limit should encourage adherence.
I thought the point of the
I thought the point of the signs was because lobbying groups and newspapers forced through the concept that speed cameras were a “tax on law abiding motorists” and “would cause accidents with suddenly braking” so they had to be made obvious in colour, be sign posted and locations made public. It was never a pre-empt to encourage slowing down, although that was what was used to justify them.
Basically, its what Ian says
Basically, its what Ian says above… wherever there is signage, there will be greater compliance.
So fixed cameras are placed where compliance is most needed / where people are most likely to stray (either by accident or design).
There was backlash a fair few years back around cynical placement of mobile speed cameras by police forces, which were perceived to be more about revenue collection and meeting quotas than safety or indeed even compliance.
The outcome was that new fixed cameras need to be justified (there is either a recognised speeding problem or heightened risk), and clearly signposted.
But I can justify putting a
But I can justify putting a speed camera anywhere there is a speed limit, because the justification is to get habitual compliance with speed limits.
Because some motorists are incapable of moderating their own driving you end up with the situation like on the Warwick Road from Warwick to Knowle, which 20 years ago was NSL virtually the whole length, then became 50, then finally had a 30mph through Chadwick End, and then sections were reduced to 40mph and most recently a 2-3 mile section between Chadwick End and Knowle now has full double white lines banning overtaking for the whole distance because drivers took too many risks.
If drivers drove to road conditions, rather than trying to meet or exceed speed limits, they would have always driven that road at varying speeds down to 30mph at times, and not need double white lines to tell them the vision is insufficient to overtake safely, but instead we have the “war on motorists taking all the fun out of driving” – which appears to mean driving is no fun if you can’t legally drive like a nutter.
The speed limit in my town is
The speed limit in my town is farcical the signs are there and a waste of space & money, same as all the yellow lines single or double even the big roundabouts on the local By-Pass are worthless, as for the inner mini-roundabouts drivers don’t even think of slowing down for them or bother looking.
Maybe it’s because most get
Maybe it’s because most get away with it and even when your caught sentences are far too lenient. The system needs to grow some balls and start banning people, no if’s, no but’s and no Mr Loophole, there simply shouldn’t be any loopholes, rant over
In leiu of watching the
In leiu of watching the Panorama about road rage, I watched the one about dangerous roads. I’m not sure of the date, but it started from the fact that the death rate on the roads was rising, which they attributed to massive cuts in traffic cops and speed cameras not working.
I’m sure that those factors have been significant in the behaviour change of some drivers, who now know that their chances of being caught driving dangerously are extremely low. It would also explain the massive increase in personal cameras, whether in car or on bike.
Another tech opportunity for
Another tech opportunity for Audi?
I drive an Audi.
I drive an Audi.
I take great pleasure in sticking to speed limits, especially 20mph ones in cities which are routinely ignored. 20mph can feel slow in a car, and it is easy to go over inadvertently, so I use cruise control so I can keep attention on the road and not checking the Speedo all the time.
I feel like I’m doing my bit by forcing everybody else to drive at 20 too.
To be fair to Mr Peck, my
To be fair to Mr Peck, my understanding of the situation in Plymouth, when installing the average speed cameras, several 20 / 30mph restricted areas have also been extended, but those extensions have been very poorly sign posted. Many hundreds of people have been ticketed, and many of those, like Mr Peck caught twice on one journey.
They can’t all be reckless speedsters.
And that’s where I think Hernandez is wrong. Her logic would have these people ostracised from society when the majority are simply decent people making earnest mistakes based on poor information.
What has been poorly
What has been poorly signposted? The speed limits will be signposted to the Highways standard, but it seems people don’t understand 30mph signing which will not be poorly signed but completely unsigned, aside from the easy to spot clue of steet lighting, if it is the speed camera warning, tough, a speed limit isn’t optional unless there is a camera warning sign (though clearly many drivers believe that to be the case).
So not seeing the need to be fair myself.
Ok warrior… they are
Ok warrior… they are average speed cameras so its not that people don’t know they are there… its the related speed limits that have been catching people out.
And I’m sure you are right, people should default to the street lighting limit, however when portions of the roads in question have been signed posted at 40mph for as long anyone can remember, you can understand why people are being caught out when these limits have subsequently changed with limited notification / signage.
As mentioned, the scale of ticketing demonstrates that something has gone awry somewhere.
Plymouths road infrastructure, and in particular the signage is pretty bad. I’ve found myself crawling along at 30mph in a 50mph zone before as I had no idea of the relevant speed limit, and still ended up in a blinking bus lane on that occasion.
So you couldn’t see sign
So you couldn’t see sign posts that would have been large and stated the 50mph at the start of the limit (or on entry onto the road) or saw them every 500m maximum along the road, and then you didn’t see the warning about a bus lane, either from signs or road markings.
Specsavers mate.
You won’t like it round us
You won’t like it round us then, where they do not always sign increases in speed limits at junctions under relatively recent regulations where you rely on repreater signs. The logic is that it is not a problem if you have someone driving along slower than the speed limit because they are unsure of what it is, because it is legal.
The scale of ticketing does indicate something is wrong – people driving out of habit rather than observation. I get the same locally on a 40mph road that totally looks like it shoudl eb 30 so some people drive at that speed, even after they pass numerous repeaters (in this case a good thing and the council are about to reduce it to 30) on the other hand you put a 30mph limit with clear repeater markings on the surface as reminders on a dual carriageway and without cameras there is nearly zero compliance.
So there are two problems, a complaint that driving through habit is not being accounted for, as opposed to driving through observation – given that a speed limit is a maximum not a target and drivers should be accounting for the situation in the moment, not hitting the speed limit should not be seen as failure; and deliberate non-compliance because every driver thinks they know better what is appropriate, and yet a surprising number eventually find out they are wrong.
What’s wrong with doing 30
What’s wrong with doing 30 mph?
Its pretty simple. If you see
Its pretty simple. If you see a sign that says 20, drive at 20 until you see a sign that tells you otherwise. It doesn’t matter if they change the location and length of that 20mph zone every week.
This is what I don’t get. We have made it completely acceptable and normal for drivers in control on a multi tonne lump of metal going at speed to pay fuck all attention to actually driving.
We have allowed the excuse of “I wasn’t paying attention” to be a valid excuse for causing injury and death on our roads. The number of people that pull out without checking their mirrors is mind boggling. The only reason our roads aren’t permanently closed due to crashes is because most people pay just enough attention to avoid the utter cretins that don’t.
mctrials23 wrote:
It’s interesting that we allow the excuse of “I wasn’t paying attention” for causing death or injury but we don’t allow it for speeding, could it be they are more interested in the money than road safety?
While it is indeed an oddity,
While it is indeed an oddity, in part it is in the nature of the way law is written rather than anything to do with the enforcers – speeding is an absolute offence, and while there is some leeway due to accuracy of measurement to avoid tedious Mr Loophole arguments all the time. turn up in court and say “Not fair, I wasn’t doing 37, I know it was 32 so the police are lying” will still get you convicted if you admit to it, you don’t get the leeway.
However, isn’t that the point the Audi driver is making, he is aggrieved that he isn’t allowed to say “I wasn’t paying attention so you should let me off”?
The driver here was saying
The driver here was saying “if I break the law twice in quick succession, why am I charged with two offences”? I guess it’s a bit like “I was charged with two counts of using drugs (pretending this is an offence) but it was the same joint I was smoking! I just put it down for a couple of minutes after I saw the first policeman”.
In short the driver was
In short the driver was whining “It’s not fair!” when avoiding a charge was entirely in their own hands.
IanMSpencer wrote:
That’s exactly the point I was trying to make, if he’d killed a cyclist he could have said it was a momentary lapse of attention and would most likely have got away with a slap on the wrist, he wants the same leeway for not seeing a speed limit sign and in the interests of being fair to all he probably ought to get it. I’m not saying that’s right in either case but they are treating the same offence (not paying attention) differently.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Given that the DoT have demonstrated that 85% of drivers routinely ignore 20mph limits and that 45% routinely ignore 30mph limits, it’s highly likely that they are.
DfT! I’ve been told!
DfT! I’ve been told! There is a calculation to be done knowing the likely death rate at different speeds and then taking into account the over-speed on the roads, that would give an idea of how many excess deaths are caused by non-compliance. I expect it is a substantial number.
I was involved in the planning of Dorridge when Sainsbury’s moved in. They put in a 20mph scheme. This previously was a 30mph road with a peculiar dual carriageway arrangement which would see cars hitting up to 60mph through the town centre and the junction to the station was a regular place for serious crashes. They kept the dual carriageway but narrowed the lanes, mild humps and made it 20. The compliance is quite good due to good design, and it has changed the nature of interactions. Drivers go out of their way to let pedestrians cross, even away from the crossing and the movement across junctions is far more cooperative than adversarial. This can only happen with high levels of compliance.
Edit: Just tried the Streetview history link and it goes back before the development:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.3732164,-1.7534631,3a,75y,28.38h,75.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saLllcRqfefGcF2u8ejmgIQ!2e0!5s20080901T000000!7i13312!8i6656
The changes are subtle, but note the removal of a massive safety fence from alongside the road to keep those unruly pedestrians from going about their business.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Are there new figures out? Last one I saw was 52% during the day and 78% at night exceeding the limit in 30 zones.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
Sorry, careless typing got the numerals the wrong way round, the 2020 DfT figures were 54% in a 30 and 85% in a 20. I’ve never seen figures with times of day on them, would be interested to.
Rendel Harris wrote:
The stats look to be quarterly but with a delay on release, and I can’t remember which one I last saw, but they do break them down by time of day (fifth section in the contents table). This one is 52% in the day and 67% at night on 30mph roads.
Most drivers break the speed
Most drivers break the speed limit, particularly on roads they know well and get away with it because the reality is that very little of the road network is covered by speed cameras. Consequently most drivers have no incentive to keep within the speed limits, where drivers see a speed camera most will slow down often well below the limit only to speed up again once they believe they are “safe”. It’s no wonder that drivers get upset when they get caught as they believe that they were OK and haven’t done anything seriously wrong and there’s always someone on the road worse than they are. Personally I have zero sympathy, I’ve been caught twice, on both occasions I took my eye off the ball. I sped, no one made me or tricked me it was my fault
I did a driver awareness course about 4 years ago and the vast majority of attendees were still trying to suggest that it wasn’t their fault. The speed limits in the UK are relatively straightforward and simple to follow. There really is no excuse for speeding.
I was on a speed awareness
I was on a speed awareness course about 15 years ago with this guy:
https://www.speakerscorner.co.uk/after-dinner-speakers/dave-gunson
He pontificated for 10 minutes on his Mercedes E Class “fitted with every conceivable safety device” being able to “stop on a sixpence” so the 30mph limit was outdated. He looked very pleased with himself till I said, “What about the child who steps out from behind the van so you never get to press the brake?”
You’d think an air traffic controller would be more clued up on safety
I don’t disagree, but there
I don’t disagree, but there is a wider issue that (lack of) punishments doled out for people who kill and maim in their vehicles do not reflect the seriousness of their crimes. It is time, for example, that the notion of lifetime bans was explored properly.
Also, mobile device usage should also be treated the same as drink driving (ie two year ban). 6 points plainly isnt working.
PRSboy wrote:
If only – the minimum (and almost always applied) ban for drink-driving is only 12 months (incredibly the minimum ban for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of alcohol is only two years). I’ve long argued that drink-driving should be a minimum five year ban with a lifetime ban for a second offence, and I certainly would agree with you that mobile usage should be subject to the same sanction, given the plethora of evidence that it negatively affect striving to the same or even a greater degree.
The amount of public energy,
The amount of public energy, time and thought spent on this particular crime must generate enough heat to power us through the winter. I’m a firm believer in keeping things simple and, when I am King, I shall change a few things:
Speeders shall no longer benefit from the generous 10% + 2mph allowance. Speeding is speeding and we shouldn’t do it. Not at all.
All speeding fines, warnings and improvement courses will be stopped. Instead speeders will, without exception, simply have to retake the basic driving test. After all, if they are skilled enough drive fast they should have no trouble with a test.
I am still formulating suitable restrictions on Audi drivers and will keep you up to date.
I can’t remember if I’ve
I can’t remember if I’ve posted this here before, but I can quite see retaking a test as a sensible solution for any careless driving offence or more serious. Having been convicted, there should be a 3 month window for a retest, and a failure is the immediate rescinding of the licence, as is failure to take the test within the time window.
The reality is that retaking the test for speeding would collapse the testing system based on the volume of speeding and then you would have problems with it being demonstrably unfair to insist on a retest if no capacity was available to provide retesting, but multiple speeding offences should trigger a re-test. There would obviously be a volume problem on other offences, but generally “Licence as a Privilege” has got to be the way to go and I am sure the instructors of this world would appreciate the extra business – though sitting next to an experienced driver bemoaning their fate for hours might not be much fun..
IanMSpencer wrote:
Consider that to be part of the penalty, if so many drivers are breaking the laws and needing a retest it would not be a bad thing if some of the were removed from the roads for a while.
Prioritise first time drivers in test bookings.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I would whack up the cost of the re-test and make the initial test free and prioritised. Make the stupid drivers subsidise the inexperienced ones.
Plymouth man caught speeding
Plymouth man caught speeding five times in 14 minutes – but doesn’t get banned
So the 27 red lights I’ve jumped and three miles of pavements crowded with pensioners I’ve ridden already today (it’s only 7:30) are in fact one of each.
https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plymouth-man-caught-speeding-five-7772067
So in this case he actually
So in this case he actually got four charges because it went on each speed camera he was caught on. He’s still saying this isn’t fair because “it was a journey”.
I can hear the young lawyers cracking their knuckles. Let’s see – you can only be charged with speeding when you go over the limit – that’s fair. So as long as you never drop below 80, you could carry on as long as your fuel tank lasts and it’s only one charge.
It’s logical, otherwise if you stole a tanker full of petrol you could be separately charged with thousands of counts of stealing a litre of fuel, plus the tanker itself, the furry dice and the contents of the glove compartment…
In David9694’s example the red lights and squashed pensioners now, they’d appear separable so you might have to plead to running through (or over) more than one. Maybe you could then ask for the rest to be taken into consideration? It better be a meaningful “journey” and not “established” red lights though – as a cyclist you’re already under suspicion on both counts there!
As you can see I’m not a lawyer. Maybe it’s one to add to the review of road law that must be happening real soon now?
But if I tell you that the
But if I tell you that the sun was in my eyes and that none of the pensioners was wearing hi viz?
I also had a medical episode and my one year old was messing with my ‘phone.
He says he was clocked at 50
He says he was clocked at 50 by the first camera and then slowed to 39. Two questions.
Why did he get a speed awareness course for 50 in a 30?
Why did he think the speed limit was 40. It is crucial to the decision. Street lights and no sign mean 30mph. He obviously didn’t see a 40 sign as one wouldn’t exist so why assume 40?
It was a magistrates court and he represented himself. He says he convinced the magistrates to use common sense. From what I’ve read it seems to me that magistrates and gulliblity go hand in hand.
Yeah interesting on the 50 /
Yeah interesting on the 50 / 30 thing. Maybe 51mph was required to trigger a higher charge? Seems very lenient.
As I’ve already mentioned, Plymouth has recently installed average speed cameras along a number of routes, mainly to distract rat running. On this road, its related to the development of Sherford and I assume minimising / mitgating against, the increase of traffic through Plympton the development has generated. Much of this road is four lane, and will be very quiet outside commuting hours. Crucially I understand that it used to have a 40mph limit.
Whilst not justifying it, I can appreciate how easy it would be to assume the historic limit would still be in effect. However, I’m sure there is a saying about assuming things….
That makes a bit more sense
That makes a bit more sense then. Thanks.
I think your anology is not a
I think your anology is not a direct comparison, its more that you jumped one set of lights, and there were 27 cameras to capture the moment, with each camera issuing you a ticket.
I personally think the magistrates were right in doing what they did. To lose your licence due to an accumlation of points demonstrates an inability to change behaviour / respect the law. It irks me something rotten that serial offenders are allowed to us the ‘hardship’ excuse to avoid a ban, when they have had ample warnings and opportunities to make amends.
In this case however, the driver has not been given that opportunity.
The chap rightfully needs punishing, but I don’t believe the offence merits taking this motorist off the road.
6 points and a chunky fine seems appropriate to me.
I think it sends the wrong
I think it sends the wrong message. Drivers are constantly dissing, evading and even vandalising any attempt at speed enforcement.
EDIT Everything is negotiable – that’s what I take from it, all helped by the Magistrates thinking “that could be me”.
would the position be any different if he had’ve dropped below the limit and then over it (let’s assume his speed is monitored on a constant basis – wouldn’t that be nice) or is it more just that he passed each monitoring point/through each monitored zone at excess speed?
I think a lot of upset pensioners around me would want to know that.
I am on board with you around
I am on board with you around the contempt many motorist show towards speed limits and enforcement.
However, I look at it positively that magistrates will review a situation with a wider perspective, and regulate punishment as they deem appropriate.
In this instance, rather than ‘that could be me’, I’d say the thinking was more likely; ‘do I believe this person’s account? is this a genuine mistake that could be made by an otherwise law abiding citzien? is the potential punishment appropriate to the offence?’
Not sure what you mean by the varying speed comment. Personally a consistent speed would be more suggestive that the driver was driving to an incorrect understanding of speed limits, rather than actively recklessly, so arguably better?
What are you doing to your local pensioners to upset them?
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
I think that was just a pastiche of recent driver excuses.
How long has to elapse
How long has to elapse between offences for a new one to start? 15 minutes, an hour, a day?
If you drove through a 1 mile 30 mph limit at 40 mph but were caught on cameras at every quarter mile, how many speeding offences? If you dropped below 30 for a bit 4 times and went over again each time, would the answer be any different?
In central London I could cycle through 27 red traffic lights in close succession – how close, or how long between each one for it to be 27 or 1 or something in between? Maybe if I did it in two batches like our friend?
Remember: what ever inch you give drivers, they will be back for a mile before you know it.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
With respect, I don’t think that’s a terribly good analogy either, given that the offences were committed over a fourteen minute period (and presumably a considerable distance, given the speed) and the driver himself admits that the limits were well signposted; it’s more as though someone jumped a red light which had a big sign on it saying that there was a camera to catch them and then went back and did it three more times.
The road is only a couple of
The road is only a couple of miles long, so I’m guessing the 14mins will reflect an out and back journey as he stated he was dropping something off.
My understanding was that the driver admitted that the signage was there to be seen, its just that, having previously driven that road many times, he didn’t look for them. His assumption being that the speed limits hadn’t changed since his last visitation. They had.
Again, my view is that to take this person’s licence for failing to note one change of speed limit, on a single stretch of road, is excessive.
I’d like to think that he will have learnt a lesson from this, and should at least be given a chance to demonstrate that.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Holy moly. This guy has repeatedly been caught speeding at up to 66% over the speed limit and has admitted that he doesn’t even bother to look for speed limit signs, and you think he should keep his licence. Weird take.
If you want to make speeding
If you want to make speeding less socially acceptable you set the limit using the 85th percentile method.
It’s bizarre that people claim to want to make speeding less socially acceptable while simultaneously advocating for limits to be set at levels that help make speeding more normal and socially acceptable.
Wait – If you come back the
Wait – If you come back the next year and find the 85th percentile speed has gone up, you have to raise the limit, right? Does it hold for motorways? Can we apply the same idea to parking offenses?
I’m certainly for recognising the limits of the police and that humans are humans. A *much* better way is to make the road signal / limit the speed itself (eg. wide and straight with sweeping turns – people *will* go faster).
However – where we are right now speeding *is* socially acceptable and in part it’s that we’ve done so much for driving and drivers while having minimal enforcement. We are in practice training people that is fine. So sadly if we want people to drive more safely it’s going to mean some (externally imposed) discipline…
chrisonatrike wrote:
I’m so dubious of this working here. Come and stay with me for a week and I can show you how people drive on narrow, winding, blind single-track when they have each door-mirror in a different hedge.
*bang* *crash* “what d’ya mean? I din’ do nuffin’ wrong, it’s signposted as 60! Why was you even there?!”
Just not enough people.
Just not enough people and not enough “feedback” *. Plenty of “local places” where the norm is … quite different.
Is it the countryside? Our centralising tendencies – dating from well before the motor vehicle – mean people there “have to drive” and increasingly far. Motor vehicles definitely accellerated centralisation (and the expectation of what people “must” have).
A “bit of speeding” is acceptable in places more full of people where you don’t even have to go far for amenties. So is it more or less likely people will go hog-wild on the fringes?
More people – then even if those also followed the local pattern speeding would soon stop anyway because you’d often be sat waiting for the local farmer to tow away the blazing wrecks.
* There are limits to this, I grant. I’ve seen a road in Scotland were there are multiple “wayside shrines” in a couple of miles to people who lost it there. But the jobs and the shops (and the bars…) were at one end and the villages (and some young people) were at the other…
ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:
The goal is not to make speeding less acceptable. The goal is to make vehicle traffic travel at a safe speed. The 85th percentile method does not achieve that goal.
ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:
I think you’re somewhat missing the point. Speeding being socially acceptable isn’t the core issue – safety is, and speeding being viewed as socially acceptable is one of the things stopping us from tackling it. Raising the speed limits so that nobody is technically speeding anymore doesn’t achieve anything (it’ll probably make the roads less safe because then everyone will be doing 110% of the new limit).
Cars have gotten heavier and have gained more kinetic potential over the last 70 years, and people driving them have not evolved to have greater reaction times in the same period either, so speed limits should be set against pedestrian levels and pedestrian survivability rates when hit by a 2.5 tonne twat-panzer travelling at those speeds. In most cases, this means lowering them.
This is the urban myth that
This is the urban myth that keeps coming up, people don’t judge their speed by speed limits, or drive slightly under or over them, it’s more down to the road’s design.
Some of the more generous speed limits I’ve seen have compliance rates over 98%, compared to fewer than 1% compliance with some 20 limits.
This is the level it’s at, I’ve even seen data showing me that there are urban roads with 40mph limits with lower average speeds than some roads with 20 limits, this is the extent to which it’s not speed limits that dictate traffic speeds.
ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:
Maybe there should be a minor road re-design after each collision in order to reduce the traffic speeds. Something like a chicane, or speed bump though that could be interesting on motorways.
Blimey – you rushed back a
Blimey – you rushed back a year later!
You keep asserting this, but it’s clearly not “an urban myth” is it*?
I think a fair description of the interaction between people, road design and speed limits would be “it’s complex”.
Anyway, console yourself that stuff like changing limits probably makes people feel “something is being done” while we wait for the best solution (which I agree with you on) – road redesign. Or even a 2nd class “fix” like “police it better”. I remain hopeful but (the seriously large sums of) money for either are no nearer appearing in policies or manifestos…
I hope I’ve not got you wrong – for example perhaps you’re happy with the (higher limit / speed) status quo, or maybe even “take the nannying limits away and let people work it out for themselves”?
* “Urban myth” = either complete BS, a fairy tale, never happened or something which is wildly exaggerated. In several parts of the UK (Edinburgh, Wales etc.) there is large-scale hard evidence – the numbers changed, the average speeds decreased. They didn’t all become exactly that number – but then they weren’t before (“30” didn’t mean “30 or below”).
My opinion on this has been
My opinion on this has been formed by the amount of data I’ve seen on the relationship between speeds and speed limits.
Back in 2014, I sent a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to see how much faster speeds would be on a local 40mph limit road, assuming they would be faster, only to find that the road had lower average speeds than many roads with 30mph limits. Subsequently, I have encountered a lot of data that shows the disconnect between limits and actual speeds. I later discovered that the Department for Transport (DfT) found that when they introduced 40mph limits, most roads experienced either no change in speed or a slight drop. Yet, the myth of people driving 5 or 10mph over the limit persists.
This isn’t an argument for 40 limits on all roads, I’m stating that limits need to match the road standard.
Recently, I came across a rather generous 50mph limit road in Corsham with the same average speed as a road with a 20mph limit in Wales where non-compliance levels are extreme.
While there is evidence that lowering limits can be effective on roads that naturally support lower speeds, setting unrealistic speed limits on roads not designed for them can make the road more dangerous. When you have over 90% non-compliance, who does that target what does that do? It’s the Golem effect bringing the law into contempt.
You don’t want people to feel that something is being done; lowering speed limits only makes it harder for the police to focus on those most likely to cause harm and gives vulnerable people a false indication of actual traffic speeds.
NotJustBikes came out with a
NotJustBikes came out with a new video just for you!
“Unrealistic speed limits … roads not designed for them”. What realistic speed limits were most roads designed for? (Hint – your answer may need to refer to horses, carts etc…)
The problem is often one of development – what was a minor road may effectively become an important artery as urban areas grow, but at some point the urban area expands around it. In the UK we’ve allowed roads to become “mixed function” eg. it’s a distributor (should pass through-traffic efficiently) but also a “place” (people stopping and starting, people walking / crossing often etc). That causes it to be poor at either function. Of course it is also more difficult to sort out by this point…
Anyway – it seems your main worry is this thing called “bringing the law into contempt”. I would suggest there’s no need to worry: that horse bolted long ago with respect to speed in many environments (motorways, residential areas) (previous government evidence). And pavement driving. And driving to the conditions…
Some roads will be modern and
Some roads will be modern and designed for a 30mph limit, while others may have been built wider because they used to have trams run along them, etc. Side note: horses and carts used to kill way more people than cars do now.
Most drivers tend to take safety seriously and have an aversion to crashing and running people over. If they feel it’s safe to exceed the limit, they’ll often default to that speed naturally. If the road is wide and there’s a greater line of sight ahead, they’ll naturally go faster. If speeds are too high relative to the limit, either the speed limit is wrong, or the design of the road is.
Speed limits are meant to single out those who don’t take safety seriously, if almost everyone is speeding, it can’t function in that regaurd. People don’t take the limits seriously anymore, when they should be.
I’ve seen that video; it seems to contradict his previous video about speed limits, where he even accidentally found himself speeding.
The problem with both videos is that he didn’t really address what to do if you don’t have the funds to change the design of the road in line with changes to the limit. He goes on more about actual traffic speeds, rather than speed limits, that’s why it’s also important that on roads where speeds are faster pedestrians are told to expect the road to be faster.
The horse hasn’t bolted, though. Where I’ve found speed limits that are unusually high, all I’ve found from a FOI request is that the compliance is unusually high.
I am saying that limits should be seen as a maximum speed meant to single out reckless drivers. They’re not traffic calming; they’re increasingly being set as if that were the case. For the difference they can make to actual traffic speeds, they’re most effective when they match the road they’re on.
ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:
Myth? er… some data for you?
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022
It’s a mixed picture – interesting that NSL single-carriageway roads the median appears somewhat lower. I’d suggest that is “design speed” in that many of these are rural and winding thus not designed for 60mph! (and sometimes limited by slower vehicles eg. farm machinery?) That’s a guess though.
What is also of note is that of course journeys in urban areas often have a low average speed overall – because of all the time spent stationary, waiting at lights or junctions for other traffic.
What I’d say about NSL roads
Where does that contradict what I’m saying? The 50% non-compliance figure for 30mph roads would be for main roads, not side streets. Trying to do 30mph down a narrow side street is scary. Most of that 50% won’t be going much over 30mph and below the enforcement threshold.
The nugget of truth to the idea of setting limits slightly below the engineering recommendations is that it may lead to safer roads and fewer accidents. It isn’t the case that 30mph works just because people got used to it; rather, it’s because it’s the speed sensible drivers won’t exceed at least by much in the absence of a speed limit. Seeing that study caused me to change my mind on the issue BTW, previously I would have said use the 85th percentile speed. I also think that study shows why a 25mph limit option might be helpful in the UK.
What I’d say about national speed limit (NSL) roads is that it’s more a symbol than just a number for a reason. They turned a NSL road into a “40 zone” near me in Nailsea, a road I often cycle along, and I complained about it. 40mph is not achievable on that road; it’s difficult to get much above 30mph, and I’ve tried. It was the council’s absurd approach to help “deal with speeding“.
However, I think it’s better to have derestricted symbols rather than signs telling people they can try to do 40.
Ireland introduced a rural speed limit sign a few years ago for that reason. There’s a reason why we use symbols for lanes and why we have reckless and careless driving laws. I think a better idea would be the introduction of a rural speed limit sign in the uk, just for the lanes that used the same symbol with ‘GO SLOW’ written beneath it.
Interesting this thread
Interesting this thread popped up.
I was on the A1120 yesterday with variable limits on section went from 50 to 30 but no change in the layout – still wide and fairly straight.
I think the 30 was for a right turn to a retail area.
ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/7/24/understanding-the-85th-percentile-speed
This! And don’t forget the
This! And don’t forget the “How to address chronic speeding” is combined with another “standard engineering approach” diagram:
* Is there congestion (are vehicles “moving too slowly”)? -> widen the road, straighten it, add lanes, build a relief road…