Andrew Bangham - 1mph Over the Speed Limit - Prosecution

[CTCNetwork]

Hi,

If I remember correctly, the "war on speed" was based on the number of accidents and specifically road deaths.
Police were required to report whether "speed was a factor" in all RTA's they attended.
For obvious reasons the statistical quality of the data was poor but the "impression" that speed was an issue could easily be presented to the public when installing speed cameras.

Speed, in and of itself, does not kill. Coming to a sudden stop or sharp random changes in direction (following impact) can.
What causes most accidents is inattention, whether fiddling with car settings, changing media, mobile phone use, watching films on a laptop (!!) or reading sheet maps on the steering wheel.
Speed will affect the consequences as the higher the speed the greater the damage.

I regularly drive behind people who will drive at 50-55 on national speed limit roads in good conditions. When said road had the speed limit dropped to 50 said same people started driving at 40-45.
Now either their speedo are waaaaay off or they are shoot scared of speed cameras.
This is not being near the speed limit but well below it.

Causing frustration in that manner can lead to people doing or taking stupid risks to get past. Another cause for accidents.

As far as I am concerned remote policing is abhorrent and motoring offenses (involving points) should only be administered by a uniformed traffic officer.

Des. . .

[Delta66]

Originally Posted by CTCNetwork

Hi,

......

Speed, in and of itself, does not kill. Coming to a sudden stop or sharp random changes in direction (following impact) can.
...
Speed will affect the consequences as the higher the speed the greater the damage.

....

Sorry, but for me that is a contradiction. You have given the reasons why speed does kill. A young pedestrian can walk out in front of your car, whilst you are doing nothing wrong, not even speeding and the result can be death.

The speed kills point is referring to the impact and the kinetic forces involved, which was vividly shown in this road safety advert;

https://youtu.be/HeUX6LABCEA

That is why speed does indeed kill in and of itself. You do need to be doing anything wrong and speed can kill.

[id5]

Originally Posted by Delta66

Sorry, but for me that is a contradiction. You have given the reasons why speed does kill. A young pedestrian can walk out in front of your car, whilst you are doing nothing wrong, not even speeding and the result can be death.

The speed kills point is referring to the impact and the kinetic forces involved, which was vividly shown in this road safety advert;

https://youtu.be/HeUX6LABCEA

That is why speed does indeed kill in and of itself. You do need to be doing anything wrong and speed can kill.

That is just as bad as you make it sound as if speed is the only factor. It is not, it is just one of the risk factors. It is risk that is important and that reduction in risk is why motorways are safer than A roads yet the smart motorway is being used as the cash cow.

[Delta66]

Originally Posted by id5

That is just as bad as you make it sound as if speed is the only factor. It is not, it is just one of the risk factors. It is risk that is important and that reduction in risk is why motorways are safer than A roads yet the smart motorway is being used as the cash cow.

My point is that the "speed kills" campaign is referring to the point of impact. Speed at the point of impact is the prime factor when it comes to determining the likelihood of injury or death.

You can have any type of accident you want, with any cause and if at the point of impact the speed is 5mph you will be fine and at 50mph the chances are you will not.

What speed kills really means is best shown by the advert I linked to of the girl who had been hit by a car and what effect different speeds had on her level of injury.

But there is an ambiguity in the phrase "speed kills", which some seized on and claimed just driving at speed is somehow going to kill and they used it to ridicule anti-speeding campaigns.

Those people have missed the point.

[Grimble]

Appropriate speed is unlikely to contribute to an accident.

Inappropriate speed can be a contributor to an accident.

Both of the above bear no relevance to the one size fits all mandatory speed limits that are posted on our highways.

60mph in thick fog on the motorway is a bit hairy.
100mph on a clear, dry, quiet motorway is not.

Risk is present in all aspects of everyday life and I for one object to being constantly forced down the lowest common denominator path to suit those that cant cope.

[Delta66]

Originally Posted by Grimble

Appropriate speed is unlikely to contribute to an accident.

Inappropriate speed can be a contributor to an accident.

Both of the above bear no relevance to the one size fits all mandatory speed limits that are posted on our highways.

60mph in thick fog on the motorway is a bit hairy.
100mph on a clear, dry, quiet motorway is not.

Risk is present in all aspects of everyday life and I for one object to being constantly forced down the lowest common denominator path to suit those that cant cope.

Motorway speed limits are varied regularly, with issues such as fog, roadworks, congestion etc (well they are on the M8 near me). I do think the limit could be safely raised to 80mph.

[canis]

Originally Posted by Delta66

Motorway speed limits are varied regularly, with issues such as fog, roadworks, congestion etc (well they are on the M8 near me). I do think the limit could be safely raised to 80mph.

I do! There are some motorways where 100mph would be fine in good conditions. Fog and roadworks already have enforceable temporary limits. Congestion limits itself.

Don't forget that it is still possible to be guilty of dangerous driving even within the limit. A limit does not absolve a driver of responsibility, it simply is a maximum at which irresponsibility becomes statutory.

[id5]

Originally Posted by Delta66

My point is that the "speed kills" campaign is referring to the point of impact. Speed at the point of impact is the prime factor when it comes to determining the likelihood of injury or death.

You can have any type of accident you want, with any cause and if at the point of impact the speed is 5mph you will be fine and at 50mph the chances are you will not.

What speed kills really means is best shown by the advert I linked to of the girl who had been hit by a car and what effect different speeds had on her level of injury.

But there is an ambiguity in the phrase "speed kills", which some seized on and claimed just driving at speed is somehow going to kill and they used it to ridicule anti-speeding campaigns.

Those people have missed the point.

Speed is not the only factor, road design is another and that has killed more people than speed. The motorways are about as safe as it gets, by design, although they can still be improved without reducing speed. Speed though is seen as the cheapest, most controllable factor but that fight against speed is now being used to generate money rather than reducing deaths. The cost of the smart motorways could have improved a large number of road design accident black spots.

[Delta66]

Speed can be a contributing factor to accidents. I am also a biker and one of the biggest killers of bikers is losing control in corners when going in too fast. That speed is contributing to the accident, which in most cases is the biker ditching the bike in the verge.

That is different from determining if the accident will be slight, serious or fatal. If the biker hits the verge at 5 mph and topples over, dented pride and a dent on the bike. If the biker hits the verge at 50 mph, serious injury if not death. Speed determines if the accident kills.

That is why there are heavier restrictions that otherwise expected on otherwise safe motorways. They are the safest roads, but the speeds are at the highest and speed kills.

If people really do want ride of speed cameras, don't speed, make them too expensive to maintain, they will be removed and you can speed all you want!

[Grimble]

Originally Posted by Delta66

If people really do want ride of speed cameras, don't speed, make them too expensive to maintain, they will be removed and you can speed all you want!

An old friend of mine lives in Sweden. Years ago, when cameras went up in the countryside, local farmers would use them as target practise for their shotguns.

The cost of repair led to their removal. Cameras do not belong on open country roads, proper junction design does.