Motorists who commit driving offences while behind the wheel of larger, heavier cars should receive tougher penalties, with the size and weight of the vehicle seen as an “aggravating factor” when it comes to sentencing, a new report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking (APPGCW) has advised.
The cross-party group’s report, set to be published tomorrow morning, also calls for speed limits to be strictly enforced, with the current tolerances for inaccurate readings scrapped, along with recommending that anyone who is banned from driving for a period should be forced to undertake a fresh driving test, while criticising those who use the “exceptional hardship” excuse to avoid bans.
In June, the Sentencing Council published 12 new and revised sentencing guidelines for those convicted of motoring offences in England and Wales. According to the guidelines, which came into effect on 1 July, the status of the victim in fatal and non-fatal collisions as a vulnerable road user now qualifies as an aggravating factor for judges to consider, increasing the severity of the offence and potentially increasing the sentence, and reflecting last year’s changes to the Highway Code.
The offender’s status as a commercial driver, or if they’re behind the wheel of a heavy goods vehicle or large goods vehicle, is also now listed as an aggravating factor, recognising the extra responsibility of those driving the most dangerous vehicles.
And now, in their new report, the MPs of the APPGCW have called for the measures to be expanded to include those driving the largest and heaviest private cars on the road.
“Passenger cars vary greatly in weight so the aggravating factors should, we argue, take this into account,” the report states.
However, the recommendation has been criticised by motoring campaigners, who claim the measure would do little to make the roads safer.
“Driving a 4×4 does not make you a more dangerous motorist and driving a smaller car does mean you are safer,” Claire Armstrong of the anti-speed camera campaign group Safe Speed, told the Telegraph.
“It makes no sense to suggest that killing someone while driving an SUV is worse than killing someone while riding a motorbike.”
Meanwhile, Ian Taylor, director of the Alliance of British Drivers added: “I am not anxious to be knocked down by any vehicle. That is what they should be seeking to avoid rather than fiddling with the rules to make life more restrictive.”
According to new large-scale analysis, published last month, of more than 300,000 road collisions between 2017 and 2021, the risk of serious injury increases by 90 percent and the risk of fatal injuries increases by almost 200 per cent when a pedestrian or cyclist is hit by a pick-up vehicle.
A pedestrian or cyclist hit by a car with a bonnet that is 90cm high was also found to have a 30 percent greater risk of fatal injuries than if they are hit by a vehicle whose bonnet is 10cm lower.
In the case of a crash between a 1,600kg car and a 1,300kg car, the risk of fatal injuries decreases by 50 percent for the occupants of the heavier car, while it increases by almost 80 percent for the occupants of the lighter car.
Elsewhere, the report called for all speed limits to be strictly enforced, bringing an end to the current guidelines which advise that motorists are only prosecuted if they exceed the limit by 10 percent plus two mph, a tolerance purported to account for inaccuracies in speed cameras.
The MPs argue that the current leeway offered to drivers encourages them to ignore speed limits, with the report pointing to data from 2021 which suggests that half of all British drivers exceed 30mph limits.
“If drivers exceed posted speed limits, their capacity to avoid collisions reduces and the gravity of any collision increases,” the report says. “Moreover, if the working assumption is that one can speed (to an extent) with impunity, this fosters a belief that traffic law does not need to be taken seriously.
“We hold the view that speed limits and their enforcement represent the foundation of road justice because speeding accounts for the lion’s share of offences committed on the roads. We therefore recommend that tolerances in the enforcement of speeding be removed.
“Without entering a debate about whether the removal of tolerances would be fair or feasible, we point out that mechanisms for measuring speed are now both more sophisticated and more accurate than they were when guidance was last revised.”
The group also criticised the use of the ‘exceptional hardship’ loophole by motorists seeking to avoid a driving ban after receiving 12 or more points on their licence.
Between 2017 and 2021, almost twenty five percent of motorists who amassed 12-plus points each year escaped a ban after pleading mitigating circumstances.
“If nearly one quarter of any group is treated as exceptional, there is something wrong with either the definition of the term or its application,” the report states.
“The consequence is that many drivers who should be serving a ban are instead allowed to continue driving. This is unacceptable, first because they may pose a threat to other road users and second, because it sends a signal that the totting-up disqualification can be circumvented.”
Instead, the report recommends that magistrates should no longer be able to grant exceptional hardship exemptions for points-accruing drivers, who made be made to appeal to the Crown Court.
The report also argues that anyone banned from driving for a period should be forced to take a fresh driving test before they are allowed back on the roads.
“This report is a key step in our work to redress that balance and ensure that there is true road justice. Doing so is essential if we are to unlock the walking, cycling and wheeling potential, and reap the associated benefits of that,” the APPGCW’s chair Ruth Cadbury said.
‘’We will be campaigning hard in Parliament for change on the recommendations within the report, and welcome support from those who share our commitment to this issue.’’
Active Travel England Commissioner and former world champion Chris Boardman, whose mother was killed by a careless driver while riding her bike, added: “We should remember that dangerous driving, law breaking, and endangering others is a choice.
“The recommendations in this paper simply seek to support laws that people should already be obeying and, if implemented, these measures would only negatively affect those that break the law, especially repeat offenders.
“I know personally the horrific consequences of road danger and I think these recommendations are completely consistent with what a civilised society should pursue. No one should have to go through what my family did.”
86 thoughts on ““Dangerous driving is a choice”: Cycling and walking MPs call for tougher sentences for motorists driving larger cars, as well as strict enforcement of speed limits”
Virtually all vehicles have
Virtually all vehicles have leeway built into the speedo such that indicated speed is higher than actual. Both my cars do about 28mph at indicated 30. So if the prosecution threshold is 35mph chances are their speedo is showing 38, maybe even 40. So there really is no excuse. At motorway speeds one of my cars reads 77 at 70mph actual (based on GPS).
Personally I’d be in favour of mandatory retest for any points.
The leeway referred to in the
The leeway referred to in the article was to allow for inaccuracy in the speed camera, not the vehicle’s speedometer.
I think that kil0ran’s point
I think that kil0ran’s point is that, with the speedometer erring on the high side, there is little excuse for speeding in the first instance.
This is not something i’d
This is not something i’d ever thought about but it makes me realise that’s why when i drive past the sign on the way into the village it always shows 2 mph less than the indicated speed.I was convinced the sign was lying to me now i realise the cars lying.I’m gonna go and do a Basil Fawlty on it right now…….the lying sod.
The main issue is getting the
The main issue is getting the police to prosecute in the first instance. Lancashire police have been sent numerous clips of dangerous driving including one where the angry driver steers his van towards me as I jump into the pavement for safety.
I was told that my cycling was dangerous because I filtered between 2 stationary lanes of cars so if they prosecute the drivers they’d also have to prosecute me. I’m wondering whether the effort of constantly charging my GoPro is worth it…
The answer would be “bring it
The answer would be “bring it on then”.
They have zero chance of that going anywhere for filtering in accordance with the HC.
Wtjs was threatened with prosecution by a Sgt
I’m sure he’ll be along to describe it in full !
Legislations for everything..
Legislations for everything….
which means at 30mph (“true speed”) a vehicle’s speedometer must not show more than 39.25mph! (the reverse is not true – if your true speed is 30mph, you speedometer must be showing at least 30mph)
Legally, if you are caught doing over 30mph, then your speedometer could have been telling you you were doing over 40mph….
When drivers use the
When drivers use the “exceptional hardship” loophole, it would make sense to tightly monitor their driving habits (e.g. a black box device) and re-consider their hardship if they are shown to be speeding at any time.
If a driver has refused to
If a driver has refused to change their driving after being caught breaking the law enough times to get 12 or more points (in some cases a lot more) then their attempt to play the ‘hardship’ card should be ignored.
If someone’s financial position is so precarious or they lose their job without a driving licence then they need to either drive legall or sell the car and ride a bike / take the train / pay for a taxi. Crying about the situation in which they’ve deliberately put themselves is truly pathetic.
These are people we really need to remove from public roads.
Like kil0ran, I’d be happy to see extended retests required for points; and also if they can get away with doing a speed awareness course.
Absolutely with the totting
Absolutely with the totting up of points. If not being allowed to drive would cause you exceptional hardship, you really should be going out of your way not to put yourself in that position.
I thought that was part of
I thought that was part of the rationale for a totting up system – to allow leeway. If people use it all up, that’s on them.
Sriracha wrote:
So they originally allowed 12 points before you were definitely banned. Which was supposed to focus people’s minds. But then those people reached 12 points surprisingly easily and had to plead exceptional hardship.
I suppose it’s a bit like “its a 30 mph speed limit but then we’ll allow X mph beyond that as a bit of leeway…”
It should IMO be a strict cut-off. No exceptional hardship. No “but my speedometer isn’t properly calibrated”. No “there’s a bomb on the bus which will explode if I go below 50mph”. Get caught doing above the speed limit and you get points. Get enough points and you get a ban.
These stories you read from time to time about people who’ve claimed exceptional hardship time and time again until they have 60 or more points but are still driving… IMO those people should be charged with careless driving or something above and beyond whatever points they have. And be ordered to retake their theory and practical driving tests.
In my whole life as a driver,
In my whole life as a driver, going on 32 years, I’ve never had more than one point off my licence, and it’s only ever happened twice…
marmotte27 wrote:
How do you get one point?
brooksby wrote:
I was under the impression that having an improperly calibrated speedometer (i.e. one that UNDERreads the speed of the vehicle) was, in itself, an offence.
Can’t wait for the fair &
Can’t wait for the fair & impartial reporting of this in the “meeja” tomorrow.
Clem Fandango wrote:
It started yesterday, Sunday, on LBC at 5pm. The full bingo card in the presenter’s introduction, starting with the “war on cars”.
I recommend cycling and
I recommend cycling and driving on the correct side of the road.
Nearly fell off my chair
Nearly fell off my chair reading the article! I’ll believe it when I see the actual sentences being handed down. A shame that will be too late for the recent tragic case of the wankpanzer launched into a primary school garden tea party.
An initiative like this will
An initiative like this will certainly hasten mass acceptance of autonomous vehicles, and the myriad technologies resultant. Good for the economy?
Speed-limit enforcement by
Speed-limit enforcement by police using speed traps, observation and cameras is from a previous era.
Why in “modern” Britain is it even possible for motorists to break speed limits that have been agreed as the law by a democratic process?
Most recent vehicles have all the technological ingredients in their make-up to have GPS-enforced speed limits. Since most drivers don’t obey the limits why give them the choice?
Following the same argument that people can’t be trusted to properly train “dangerous” dogs that can klll and are therefore banned, the same principle should apply to vehicles capable of ignoring and grossly exceeding speed limits. Ban vehicles that don’t have e.g. GPS-based speed limiters. Make it an offence to disable or jam it.
The UK should take the lead in the world and do the right thing. Make speeding impossible.
There are an extremely few
There are an extremely few instances where driving over the speed limit for a very short period of time can be safer, where driving a vehicle with a hard limit could be more dangerous.
The one that comes to mind is when performing an overtaking manouver on a country roads. It can be safer to accellerate until you pass what you are overtaking and then returning to the speed limit once the manouver is over.
That allows you to be in the oposite lane for a shorter period of time, and a hard limit could potentially make the manouver more dangerous.
Though I am aware that in the case that there is a hard limit, the safest manouver is no manouver.
Personally if I’m cycling on a 30mph country road and get to a short straight, I would rather a car following accellerate to 40 and giving me lots of room to get passed then go back to 30mph rather than have them up my arse for the next few miles. But this implies that they would A. give more room and B. not already be driving above the limit anyway.
jkirkcaldy wrote:
When did overtaking become a human right? How many times per year (being chased by murderous types, carrying donor organs / a ticking bomb) does doing this outweight the increased risk to both self and others?
Surely if you can’t do the manouever within the law, it’s really clear cut – you just don’t do it. And if you start and realise you can’t finish the worst thing you can do is add additional kinetic energy to the situation (and reduce your control / the time you have to do anything else)?
I think this is why one nation has effectively banned this completely in many situations. Probably the given risk per overtake is very small, but at population level the numbers add up, and it’s just not necessary. The one way to guarantee you’ll be slower is to go so fast you crash.
It’s a truly fascinating
It’s a truly fascinating reflection on society that we rigorously enforce speed limits on e-bikes and e-scooters (indeed, GPS geo-fencing e-scooter speed limits) but it’s seen as an attack on personal liberty to do the same with cars.
Truly this is “what you grow
Truly this is “what you grow up with sets your ‘normal’.”
Like so many things first “follow the money” and look at the history. Cars are long-established as both “the engine of the economy” and individually as markers of wealth or value. Even though they are not just expensive for individuals, they cost the whole of society to run.
Even smart people armed with the figures find it hard to get beyond this assumption because we’ve all grown up with this as a cultural norm.
Scooters make some people lots of money (hence the push for them) but a) nowhere near as much as cars b) they’re new and haven’t yet become high-status c) they’re sometimes in pedestrian spaces (danger, danger! Like cyclists!) Sadly, fatally, cars are also of course. Quite often. When that happens though we categorise those occurrences as one-offs – exceptional aberrations. Because “cars are on the *road*”.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Just so – although the freedumbs allowed to cars and their often inept pilots are also to do with the fundamental nature of the car itself, permed with those features of human nature amplified, demanded and celebrated by our rabidly individualistic kulture.
The car is highly seductive to the minds of folk raised on hero-men and gimlet-eyed rebels distainful of authorities other than their own whims. The car represents immediate power, dominance-possibilities and a general means to inflate the egos of individualistas everywhere.
Incidentally (or is it) there’s a not dissimilar appeal of the racing bike “weapon” to similar minds as those easily seduced by the car. Having cycled with others in clubs, events and other collective pedalling for many decades, it’s become easy to spot those addicted to ego-inflation via often stupid inconsiderate actions on their bike. The attitudes and actions can also be seen as they drive to or from such cycling events.
*********
There are all sorts of possible means to reduce such attitudes and behaviours. But humans don’t really control any of them. Ideas, attitudes and conseqient actions evolve and infest us all by themselves, with only the laughable hubris of humans enabling them to claim that they thought up and instigated matters as a matter of choice. Deep unconscious churns make the “choices”. Is this not obvious from himan history and our planet-wide current condition? Apparently not, to most.
“Driving a 4×4 does not make
“Driving a 4×4 does not make you a more dangerous motorist and driving a smaller car does mean you are safer,” Claire Armstrong of the anti-speed camera campaign group Safe Speed, told the Telegraph(link is external).”
Claire Armstrong denies the physical laws of kinetic energy. But probably not surprising from someone who very likely is also a climate denier.. ..
marmotte27 wrote:
(Presumably “driving a smaller car doesn’t mean you are safer”?)
They always used to say “you might be great… but why stack the odds against yourself?”
What if my 4×4 is a Fiat
What if my 4×4 is a Fiat Panda?
Good idea. Can we please also
Good idea. Can we please also have additional and more rigorous licensing and testing requirements for people who want to drive the new behemoths? Every day on Albert Bridge I see people easing their wankpanzers through the width restrictions at a snail’s pace – sometimes the passenger even has to get out and guide them through. It does not fill one with confidence that their judgement of distance is going to be any better when they pass one by at 40mph.
As the article points out,
As the article points out, Claire Armstrong’s statement that driving an SUV does not make you more dangerous is factually wrong.
Claire Armstrong’s objections
Claire Armstrong’s objections sound a lot like “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, and “let’s talk about knife crime not mass shootings” in the US.
(but we will ignore the fact that machine guns allow you to kill a lot of people easily and quickly)
I’m just waiting for “thoughts and prayers for the victims” from Claire Armstrong
Claire Armstrong wrote:
Actually Claire, driving a 4×4 does, 100% make you a more dangerous motorist because the same standard of driving creates more dangerous results so, in order to be just as safe as someone driving a smaller vehicle you have to drive at a higher standard.
Also, compare and contrast
Also, compare and contrast with today’s news stories about banning dangerous breeds of dogs, and the relative culpability of the dog and breed versus the owner. We can ban dogs on the basis that they can be dangerous if in the hands of negligent owners. But somehow it is outrageous to do this with motor vehicles.
I’d rather see vehicle weight
I’d rather see vehicle weight/engine power restrictions on drivers with points than harsher penalties for those making mistakes.
9 points or more? 100hp and 1.5t limit. No “exceptional hardship” claim. After all we limit the engine size for motorbike riders until they can prove they can operate their vehicle safely, why not limit car drivers when they have proved they cannot operate their vehicle safely?
Personally I think the whole
Personally I think the whole points system should be scrapped. If you are caught doing something that would have meant failing your driving test, you should get an automatic ban.
To drive again would require re-passing your test.
NickSprink wrote:
There’s currently a 6 month wait to get a driving test. That would be quite some incentive to stick to the limits!
I htink there is room for a
I htink there is room for a warning for speeding under certain circumstances. There are a few roads around me where the limits are ambiguous.
Perhaps a course after your first offense then you have to pass your test again.
Other offenses should have an immediate license revocation.
Exceptional hardship excuses should be banned. If you know you are completely dependant on your license for work or to care for someone or any other reason then you shouldn’t have broken the law multile times.
This is extremely relevant:
I can think of places where
I can think of places where the speed limit is unknown due to the sign being buried in shrubs.
Highways authorities do not seem to worry about this.
I am planning on taking the petrol hedge cutter out soon !
Hirsute wrote:
Battery powered, surely?
Personally I would keep the
Personally I would keep the points system.
But courts should all but be required to order you repass your test within x months (or lose your licence). So not immediately banned, but required to prove soon that you can drive to test standard.
Equally ANY exceptional hardship should automatically include a LONG suspended driving ban. I.e. any driving offence within 10 years will result in a ban 10x as long as it would have originally been (in addition to anything else) even if the offence normally wouldn’t result in a ban.
Finally, Driving while disqualified should:
qwerty360 wrote:
Proving that you CAN drive to test standards is of no value to the rest of us, if you choose not to do so when out and about without scrutiny.
NickSprink wrote:
Oh dear, how are you going to police mirror checking? And ensure people indicate at exactly the right times, or even reverse round a corner correctly?
Those things, if done in a
Those things, if done in a way that doesn’t cause danger, are minors, not cause for failure.
And if you are caught reversing round a corner in a way that causes danger to others of course you should lose your driving license, if you can’t do the simplest things safely how are you going to handle exceptional or unexpected circumstances?
Patrick9-32 wrote:
I’m not a driving instructor or a examiner. But it doesn’t take much brain power to know that if you don’t check mirrors before setting off, it means you don’t know whether it is safe to proceed or not. Therefore, it is a major not to check mirrors. Just because you might not check them and 9/10 times it’s fine, the last time you may have an accident.
You also contradict yourself – you say that not checking mirrors is only a minor, not a cause for failure, but then proclaim about if you cant do the “simplest” things. Last time i checked (lol) checking mirrors was pretty simple.
Erm, because you would have
Erm, because you would have pulled out/ across in front of someone and caused them to take avoiding measures , or caused a collision, or opened their door on a cyclist, or totally missed the Police Car behind with big flashing blue lights. There are lots of reasons it is obvious a mirror check hasn’t been carried out.
So who would drive the taxis?
So who would drive the taxis?
Choice of car does affect
Choice of car does affect driving style and, if course, effect of an impact, whether driven well or recklessly.
For example, we bought a 2nd hand automatic Ford Galaxy to transport 7 people plus a bag each in comfort up to 250 miles each way or tools for heavy-duty diy. It followed advice from two neighbours then another copied us. All 4 of us noted how sedate they are to drive. They encourage and facilitate a no-stress awareness of everything driving style. Easy to crawl, keep to 20mph, do economy driving near 60mpg on motorway or hold 70mph. So much easier than our previous smaller cars with small engines and higher revving with constant gear changing to hold 20, 30, 40, or 50 mph. Galaxy also takes bikes inside with seats down. We, and neighbours chose them for what they turned put to be. Some were getting rid of performance cars from before retirement and commented on change to how they drove.
I’ve nearly stopped cycling due to huge 4*4 vehicles filling lanes, wildly reckless ebikes and escooters, very reckless cyclists, mass cycling by people with no idea of any road discipline, pedestrians glued to phones. Walking, driving, bus, tube, train (old age travel passes) vs drag of carrying locks, using locks, attaching and detaching lights. Shame. 45 years riding, often very fast for long distances, mostly in, around, through, under, over London while obeying Highway Code and letting pedestrians cross in safety. Remember the days when just a few of us and East Ham to Central London or Horsham to Hampstead or tube East Ham to Earls Court was faster by bicycle.
Of course the past 20 years growth in bike use is good in principle. But now becoming ashamed of being labelled a cyclist as I walk with older, frailer friends and family
I look forward to drivers of
I look forward to drivers of electric vehicles (which are, of course, typically heavier than their combustion engined counterparts) being more highly punished and penalized.
Keep the good old diesels. They make much more sense
Errr, no. EVs are undoubtely
Errr, no. EVs are undoubtely heavier than internal combustion engine equivalents. The main points here are: autobesity means that there are more heavier cars (4*4s, ghastly pickups) that should by rights be replaced with lighter ‘normal’ cars. And perhaps more importantly, the shape and height of the vehicles, and whether a pedestrian is flipped over the bonnet of a ‘normal’ car versus having their torso crushed by a square-fronted high 4*4
Bigger in this case often
Bigger in this case often means “worse visibility” – even though “higher”. (There’s something psychological here – people like a “lookout” and obviously “above others” can make you feel superior! Tangential but perhaps part of the reason I like the Dutch bike / roadster riding position is your head is a little bit higher…)
Aside from the constant treadmill of “bigger, newer, more resources, more expensive” which all humans are engaged in, there is absolutely no need for the more recent crop of bigmobiles and “semi-trucks”. There are better designs for every conceivable use except (thanks notjustbikes!) carrying fragile egos.
At least the fashion for
At least the fashion for those ludicrous bull bars has ended: to be replaced by massive vehicles with huge, flat front ends.
Is that progress?
the little onion wrote:
By rights it should be smaller? So now you’re saying that everyone should be told what car they can drive, so that they have no choice at all?
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
You are already effectively told what car you can drive, there are restrictions based on emissions, size, weight and safety. The idea that regulation of vehicle dimensions or emissions is somehow an attack on freedom is a silly Americanism beloved of silly people. In addition, your supposed right to drive large vehicles does not triumph over the rights of others to be safe on the road.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Just remind me again, you were the guy complaining that I followed you around? Cos it feels a bit creepy that you have to comment on everything I post.
No you are not told what to drive. As long as it is road legal, I can chose literally any car I want to drive, anywhere pretty much. That’s regulations for manufacturers, not on buyers
You’ve completely twisted it like usual too – it’s not about regulation of dimensions – there always will be big and small cars. This is about regulation and restriction on what an individual can purchase, depending on their “supposed needs” which is quite frankly authoritarian and a direct attack on personal liberty.
Not to mention, you could have a family, so you have a Volvo XC90. But then you also use the big car to commute to work sometimes. What are you meant to do then?
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Just to remind you, you were banned from this site under your previous thisismyusername in part for abusing me, you returned using the username Rendel Harriz and then when you were stopped from using that you changed it to Ledner Sirrah. I think it’s pretty clear to everybody who the creepy obsessive is.
I don’t comment on everything you post, I just comment on the stuff that is really, really stupid and promotes car driving over alternative transport and incorporates irrelevant alt-right drivel. Admittedly that is virtually everything you post.
Weren’t Road Legal known for
Weren’t Road Legal known for being campaigners on wide range of civil rights issue (e.g. against driver licencing, de-restriction of the sale of fissile materials, “right to roam” legislation including access to people’s closets, and the right to arm bears)?
IIRC they latterly became associated with the alt-right following incidents in which they realised that music on their website could be downloaded without bothering to pay them and an incident in which a fan’s children made off with the group’s friendship bands.
Rendel Harris wrote:
It’s a good job that rather than focus on the substance of my comment, you choose to pick up on that comment. It seems like your conscience has been pricked somewhat. Perhaps you would now kindly “get lost” and stop bothering me.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
As ever, sweetie, your own words do far more to prove what a silly little attention-seeking-previously-banned (I notice you never deny the truth about that) alt-right-pro-car-road.cc-hating troll you are than mine ever could. Get well soon.
Physics like the climate
Physics like the climate breakdown really is a thing. Taxing the b’jesus out of heavy, polluting or dangerous vehicles should be encouraged, they’re just too hazardous. You want to drive a wankpanzer? No problem; vehicle execise duty of £3,500 p.a. You want to drive a pickup? No problem, vehicile excise duty of £3,500 p.a. Ronald Reagan was wrong about many things but he got this right, if you want to discourage something tax it heavily. Personally I believe that the public’s right to a healthy environment and safe roads should be encouraged and anything that negatively impacts upon it should be heavily discouraged. Perhaps you disagree that your fellow citizens are worth it; that’s your choice.
Quote:
My understanding is that the guidelines are due to there being so many speeding drivers that there are not enough resources to prosecute all of them. Therefore the police only prosecute the worst offenders.
I can sort of see the logic to it, but the outcome is that for a 30mph zone the de facto limit becomes 35mph, 40mph becomes 46mph and so on. If the policy was to prosecute everyone exceeding the limit by even 1mph then I think you’d get a lot less speeding and the number of prosecutions would not significantly increase.
Tom_77 wrote:
Now you wouldn’t run a business like that, turning away customers eager to make purchases because you simply can’t take their money quickly enough.
The government needs to overhaul the system, until it is equal to the task.
For example, on motorways where roadworks have finished, they often leave the average speed cameras, but post signs to say they are not in use. Why?! They should just be seen as part of the motorway improvement, reprogrammed to 70mph, tickets issued automatically, car impounded if not paid. If people want to then take a dispute through the legal process, let them join the queue after the fine is paid.
I have a theory from miles of
I have a theory from miles of cycling in the peaks that *generally* the bigger/more expensive the car, the closer the pass. Obviously there are exceptions, but it does feel like smaller, older & cheaper cars give me a wider birth when overtaking. Does this resonate with anyone?
Maybe there is a correlation
Maybe there is a correlation with those who ride bicycles?
Certainly where I am, I’ve
Certainly where I am, I’ve found the big, top end Auldi and BMW saloons to generally driven quite well.
It’s almost as if the people who drive them don’t want to blemish them with the blood and crap that hitting another road user would cause.
Cheaper, smaller cars and SUV – which are more likely to be on HP or lease or given by parents – on the other hand, are quiet often driven with reckless abandon towards others, including their fellow drivers.
It’s almost as though they are trying to prove something …
Ricermobiles … or the body modified guys – I’ve found tend to be largely well behaved; these guys tend to love their cars and already know that they are sailing close to the legal wind and don’t want to do anything to risk losing their wheels.
To be honest though, aresholes and shitheads come in all shapes and sizes and drive all different vehicles.
Met a group of LEJOG’ers yesterday form the SW, and they were quite complementary about the drivers in the Central Belt of Scotland… mind you, they hadn’t crossed the water in to the hellhole that’s Fife … ??
Just wondering if Auldi’s are
Just wondering if Auldi’s are readily available from the middle Isle of a certain cut price german supermarket!, sorry I’ll get me coat?
Squidfish wrote:
Underpaid midwives?
All delivery drivers seem to
All delivery drivers seem to be dangerous drivers – maybe midwives are different?
Well, what they deliver is
Well, what they deliver is different.
Either it’s a limit, or it’s
Either it’s a limit, or it’s guidance. The current formula, allowing many drivers to break the limit with impunity, shows that it’s guidance.
It should be made a limit, but we live in a car-obsessed society, where everyone else uses the road on sufferance, so it ain’t gonna happen.
.
.
I hear ya, but I’d argue that
I hear ya, but I’d argue that the speed limits and subsequent flex around them were set together with careful consideration.
The idea that road planners set 30mph speed limits where actually driving below 30mph is imperative to safety is a trifle naive. That’s what 20mph speed limits are for.
It’s a bit like recommended alcohol intake. The weekly recommended allowance is set at roughly half of what it could be if people actually reported their intake accurately. I think there was a study a few years back that looked at the alcohol reportedly consumed according to what consumers / patient said they drank, and compared it with UK alcohol sales. There was a very distinct gap between the two and guidelines were adjusted down accordingly.
I would love some reform in
I would love some reform in favour of these proposals, and I think in places it could go further, for example in a reduction to the total accrued points before a ban and retest is required. Some leeway is still required, I’ll give my own experiences with a FPN as an example; I received a ticket and an invite to a speed awareness course for being clocked at 48mph heading N on the M6 between J7&J8. Gantry after gantry posting 50mph, cruise control set at 50, steady traffic across all 3 lanes, lane 3 clears and lanes 1&2 slow slightly for J8, I’m carrying on up the road so focus is on the traffic to make sure suicidal Brummie drivers don’t be stereotypical urban drivers on a motorway. I miss the one gantry that dropped the limit to 40.
Mia culpa! I was in the wrong, but in the scheme of things I was a saintly motorist compared to the almost-certainly-drug dealer in a blacked-out Audi A4 who swerved across 4 lanes in equally heavy traffic just 3 miles previously.
If I could play devil’s advocate I think there is *some* merit in treating all motor vehicles equally, regardless of size, as the concept of a small car doesn’t really exist anymore. Unless you are a professional arborist, farmer or gamekeeper, there is no reason for pickups to be on our roads. Similarly a Range Rover Velar has no legitimate market in the UK, but on the other end of their product line, a range rover Evoke is barely larger than a VW golf. The description of SUV is so tied up in marketing BS that is has no bearing on the actual vehicle it describes.
I imagine the vast amount of
I imagine the vast amount of people caught for speeding will tell a similar tale. I personally have fallen foul three times over the past 25 years. 40 in a 30 zone, where the camera man positioned himself 20metres before the road became a dual carriageway and a 70mph limit, 60 in a 50 zone, which i thought was 60, felt like an idiot on that one (camera man positioned himself on the only overtaking lane in 10 miles to catch people like me trying to get passed slow moving lorries), and 36 in a 30 zone where the camera man positioned himself literally behind the 30 sign, and caught me slowing too slowly… if that makes sense.
In all cases, I would love to argue that I had been respecting the spirit of the law; I had been observing the 30, I thought I was able to drive at 60, I was slowing to 30… but each time I’ve been caught bang to rights.
The reality is that mobile cameras are placed where the forces know they’ll catch the most people. Most offenders are not drug fuelled crazies, or rampant yoofs, its the complacent, absent-minded average Joes.
That’s why I think these driver courses are good. As a timely reminder to be better at adhering to the limits for those getting complacent with their driving. It also means it is a lot harder for people to absent mindedly accrue 12 points on their licence. Therefore, the courts really should judge those with 12 or more points more harshly than they do!
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
The reality is that mobile cameras are placed where the forces know they’ll catch the most people. Most offenders are not drug fuelled crazies, or rampant yoofs, its the complacent, absent-minded average Joes.— Jimmy Ray WillMost collisions are not caused by crazies or yoofs and from my experience ANPR cameras are used at known collision sites or where speeding is a known issue.
Perhaps if you put a little more effort into respecting the LETTER of the law you would not fall foul of it. It seems that many people want to decide for themselves what is a ‘safe’ speed (i.e. safe for themselves, not anyone outside their metal box) then complain when they are at odds with the real speed limits.
Why do you need a reminder? Learn the rules. Don’t be so complacent.
If speeding/texting/drink-driving etc in a vehicle on public roads had the same consequences as shoplifting I might think you had a point. But it’s not. You have a duty of care to all other road users and the law is there for a reason. Or can we all decide which rules to abide by and which we can ignore?
If you have an issue with enforcement then ask the safety partnership, though I’d argue that it’s the lack of enforcement that is the problem. I’m sick of so many drivers speeding past the end of my road or along the busy 30mph A-road which goes past a busy supermarket, a ped crossing and junction. And I could name a hundred other places in the town and nearby with the same behaviour. They drive like it doesn’t matter when it most certainly does! And it has long been known that speeding and aggressive driving deter people from cycling on the road.
…be careful, it’s easy to
…be careful, it’s easy to be sanctimonious until it’s you that’s been caught out.
That holier than thou attitrude is exactly how complacency develops and mistakes to creep in… good luck with it all from up there in your ivory towers.
When you say “camera man” –
When you say “camera man” – was it a mobile check every time? Pretty sure that the locations of all the static ones are posted, and they’re painted so you can see them, and they put up signs…. Also as you say yourself you saw the 30 sign…
The mobile ones I’ve seen around Edinburgh always seem to be in the same locations.
I would agree that it’s likely that forces go where they will catch people but you could see this as pragmatism rather than as sneaky “war on the motorist”. Probably your career in road policing wouldn’t go far if you constantly set up speed traps at the end of cul-de-sacs.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
As spoken in many a jury room.
I would agree it’s more
I would agree it’s more “mistakes” than “maelvolence” out there. However … that is also a problem. Drug fuelled crazies are an issue (I’d love to see stats on how much) but … we all take driving too casually, much of the time. Lots and lots and lots of “but I’ve never had an accident before…” makes for a problem.
“But we can’t always be focussed like fighter pilots”. Again – that’s the issue. We are expecting (and society is encouraging us) to drive too often, for too long, when we’re not alert or free from distractions.
Mostly, we get away with it. Because other people are alert when we’re not, because of decades of safety features inside and outside cars, because despite so many drivers we’ve made a LOT of space for driving in, because the policing of the laws are minimal.
Yes, some of these laws / limits may be arbitrary – but the general intent is in the right direction (safety) I’d say.
Despite prevailing opinion you don’t have to go at the speed limit. Yes – I know this is not easy because other drivers!
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
If I get caught speeding in my car I’ll be willing to admit I broke the law, whether inadvertently or deliberately. I’ll not cry about it and play the victim when I am aware of the rules and nowadays I’m even more aware of the danger my vehicle’s speed poses to others.
So you can take that attitude and shove it up your arse.
Edited to add this tweet:
Speed is a leading contributory factor in fatal road crashes, approximately 50% of those in London.
https://twitter.com/AndyCoxDCS/status/1633539874476179457
TFL yesterday:
Since we lowered speeds on the @tfl roads, collisions have fallen by 25%.
https://twitter.com/willnorman/status/1701216003454026074
RoSPA information page:
Exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions were assigned by police officers as contributing to 27% of fatal collisions in 2020, as well as 16% of collisions in which a serious injury occurred and 13% of total collisions.
https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speeding
Plenty more data out there if I had the time…
Plus a roadpeace tweet from May 2023:
The complacent, absent minded
The complacent, absent minded Joe’s kill and seriously injure many.
Maybe concentrate a bit more.
And from the ones I’ve seen those camera people wear bright yellow.
Anyone read the report?
Anyone read the report?
I’m halfway through there are some good bits..
https://allpartycycling.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/APPGCW-Road-Justice-Report-2023.pdf
A3 – In addition to being a very useful tool, a car has the potential to be a lethal weapon. And those who drive dangerously (as defined by the offence) are effectively wielding a lethal weapon. The maximum sentence for having an offensive weapon (or bladed article) in a public place without good reason or lawful excuse is currently four years. We recommend that the Government increase the maximum sentence for dangerous driving to four years.
B2 – Standardising third-party reporting systems -We therefore recommend the implementation of a standardised system across police forces for submission and processing of third-party reporting, based on best practice and supported by adequate resourcing. Submission would be made simple and easy; there would be standard rules for assessing and acting on evidence (as prosecution rates currently vary widely across forces), and for the ongoing provision of information to witnesses.
PLUS… Sentences for driving offences to reflect vehicle weight In keeping with the Highway Code’s hierarchy of road-user responsibility, we argue that those in charge of vehicles with the greatest capacity to do harm should face greater penalties for not taking the requisite care. Vehicle weight is a contributing factor to the severity of a collision, so we contemplated making a recommendation along these lines. But sentencing guidelines that came into effect on 1st July for a range of serious traffic offences include as aggravating factors: “victim was a vulnerable road user, including pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists etc” and “driving a LGV, HGV or PSV etc”29. This is an encouraging development though it could go further: passenger cars vary greatly in weight so the aggravating factors should, we argue, also take this into account.
Road casualties have become
Road casualties have become normal in Britain. But there is another way (Peter Walker, The Grauniad)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2023/sep/12/road-casualties-have-become-normal-in-britain-but-there-is-another-way
It would be fun if the speed
It would be fun if the speed limits were posted as “30/vehicle weight in Tons”
If your car weighs 2 tons your speed limit is 15mph. not only would the roads be safer but the nation’s mental arithmatic would be improved overnight ;P
Your 40 tonne lorry is stuck
Your 40 tonne lorry is stuck doing .75 mph and the produce has all gone rotten, thus the nation starves.
Well, lorries could be
Well, lorries could be outside sumptuary laws.
Alternatively – there’s a massive disincentive to truck cheap plastic tat around our cities or fly in food, and we’re incentivised to enjoy our local turnips just like what the government told us. Or improve our rail network.
OTOH we consume way more than we produce locally (see “carrying capacity”) and apparently our economy runs on people borrowing more money to buy more plastic junk. (Which is imported on credit, etc. – maybe that’s why we’re so hot on the financial sector?). I guess China and other producers don’t take payment in mangold-wurzels, so perhaps this needs a rethink?
Can’t help wondering who pays for them potholes that all the pedestrians and cyclists are causing though. I wonder if there is a tight enough feedback loop between those most responsible for production of potholes and the money due?