Zoom!

[andrewducker]

From the observation last night in conversation with Lilian that people complain about speed cameras all the time, but you rarely hear anyone saying that the actual limit should be raised.

Note for for'n types - speeds are in MPH.

[Poll #1257772]

Comments

[drainboy.livejournal.com]

The problem is one deeper than just speeding, it's an inherent problem of law. Law is a binary function over an anlogue system. The actual safe driving speed for any piece of road varies wildly with the specific context of time, weather conditions, traffic, time of day, driver condition, car condition and so on. A sober driver, at 3am, on a clear dry night, on a motorway, driving a modern car at 120mph, with a couple of training courses under their belt is likely to be safer than a driver just under the drink drive limit, in heavy traffic, on a rainy day, driving at 50mph, just after passing their test.

The difference between the two situations has to be the judgement of whoever it is enforcing the laws (either the police who decide whether or not to arrest you, the prosecutor deciding whether or not to take the case to court or the judge deciding whether or not you're guilty). This is the reason I object to traffic cameras. They have no opinions and neither do the people that process the photos and send out the fines. It's also why I object to the police having quotas for tickets. It wholly removes the reason for the laws in the first place: to make the roads safer.

[andrewducker]

The problem is that there's no way to tell the difference between the two drivers from a distance, which means that you have to pull them both over and check whether it's the idiotic 17-year-old doing 120 or the skilled experienced driver.

And the number of people safe at higher speeds isn't just low - it's even lower if they're around the idiots.

Plus, of course, most bad drivers think they're better than they are...

[drainboy.livejournal.com]

I agree that most people who think they're great drivers who can drive fast with impunity are wrong. I think there are plenty of reasonably cautious drivers that can drive quite safely at 80pmh or 90mph. I don't want the police to have their ability to stop people they think are driving uncautiously and over the speed limit removed. I just want the police to be able to judge the situation themselves on its merit and not some camera drone that has no judgement at all.

As to telling who is behind the wheel, judge it completely by behaviour. Stop people if they're driving faster than their driving methods suggest are safe. If someone is doing 100mph, but indicating ahead of time, pulling slowly from lane to lane ahead of any problems, slowing down when 100mph isn't safe and being a generally cautious driver, fine. If they're doing 80mph, undertaking, switching lanes without indicating and being a potential problem, give them a speeding ticket.

I think it's a lot more difficult to arrest people for dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention unless they've had a crash. You can still hit them with a speeding ticket if they're driving stupidly _and_ fast.

[andrewducker]

The thing is that driving fast when you're not competent will be something you get away with 99% of the time. But that 100th time will kill you, and other people around you.

Also, I would imagine roads where some people are driving at 70mph and others are doing 100mph are inherently less safe. Setting a top limit at a level which is suitable for 95% fo drivers seems like a reasonable compromise.

[drainboy.livejournal.com]

I have only once had an issue with mis-judging someone's speed. When I was driving on a single carriageway, old roman road (one lane in either direction), checked my rear view mirror to see someone a quarter mile behind, indicated about 10 seconds later to pull around a slow moving car and nearly pulled out in front of a car doing about 120mph.

It's not that I think people should be able to drive at any speed they like (some speeds are intrinsically dangerous in various conditions), more that I neither want the police not to be able to give out tickets at their discretion for speed limit X, nor do I want speed limit X to be a speed where people are automatically fined no matter what the context.

The M25 works very well as a place where, despite having speed cameras everywhere, you can drive up to 90mph in most conditions without anything happening. People don't wildly pull out expecting everyone to be sticking to 70mph, but the people driving over the speed limit generally do it in a sensible manner. I can't tell if it's inherently less safe or not (I imagine it is to _some_ extent), but there is no absolute safety unless we all stop our cars...and not even then.

If we upped the top speed to 90mph because that's the point at which the cameras actually go off, then the police would have less powers to slap down the people who drive at 90mph in a dangerous manner. If we make the cameras go off at 70mph then a lot of perfectly safe driving would be punished.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

Andy, AFAIK, you don't drive (and never have?). Not an ad hominem attack, just saying your viewpoint might be different to a driver's.

[andrewducker]

Of course not. It's _much_ more likely to be objective.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

From my sister, who was (until recently) a risk analyst in commercial vehicles at Norwich union, the safest speed to be travelling at is....

... the same one as everyone else.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

I agree - there is no allowance for skill level. there should be, somehow, except, as stated, the worse folks are at something the less likely they are to know it.

hmmm put everyone on motorbikes (solo) - then if you do cock up from over-confidence you are likely only to take out yourself.