“Speeding should be every bit as unacceptable as drink driving,” argues police and crime commissioner

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

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. 

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.

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:

The reality is that retaking the test for speeding would collapse the testing system 

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:

IanMSpencer wrote:

The reality is that retaking the test for speeding would collapse the testing system 

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.

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.

PRSboy wrote:

Also, mobile device usage should also be treated the same as drink driving (ie two year ban).  6 points plainly isnt working.

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.

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

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 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 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 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 mph?

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:

 

We have allowed the excuse of "I wasn't paying attention" to be a valid excuse for causing injury and death on our roads. 

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, 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 "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 whining "It's not fair!" when avoiding a charge was entirely in their own hands.

IanMSpencer wrote:

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"?

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:

They can't all be reckless speedsters. 

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! 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:

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.

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:

Rendel Harris 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.

Are there new figures out? Last one I saw was 52% during the day and 78% at night exceeding the limit in 30 zones.

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:

I've never seen figures with times of day on them, would be interested to.

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.