Police clamping down on speeding evaders
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5340846.stm

They just won't leave thrill seekers alone.
BUT I DO AGREE WITH CUTTING THE BO****KS OF DRINK DRIVERS!

Some get their thrill with speed, others drink! they both use vehicles!!! Who are you to say one is less dangerous than the other?:D ;)

you're a legend andy, you just cant help yourself! straight out of blairs handbook!

Trust me im not!

See, you can criticise a blokes missus, what they drink, and so on, but criticise their driving/riding thats another thing!

Its not the speed thats the problem, its the control of the person doing it, thats why there's all encompassing rules, with legal excemptions!;) :lol:

:lol: :lol:



I don't have a problem with speed as long as the only person you going to hurt is yourself, once you bring in innocent bystanders as brake assisters I don't thing thats quite right.

Absolutely right... so long as the mrs can put on a smile when the copper knocks on the door to break the bad news!

In a moment of seriousness, ive done that knock so many times ive forgotten..........If i took even the hardened poster on this topic with me at that point, i think it would make them re assess their perspective.

To observe grown men and women dissintegrate into a crumbling mess as their lives are changed, and never going to be the same again!

Sobering thoughts.............

I know, there is always more fallout than expected, even I may have family or a friend who might miss me.
But if we are always looking over our shoulder at what additional damage we may cause if it goes wrong then would we ever leave the house?
I hope I'm not giving out the impressions of being a wreckless rider, far from it. I have no urge to see how fast I can go round a blind bend, but when I feel the conditions are right I will make a calculated risk assesment like most other people and the go for it if I can.

comment wasn't aimed at you jeff, twas aimed at anyone who goes by the attitude of "well it's only me that'll get hurt".

Anyhow, I'm off soon to take the bike out for a spin. Will be taking off the mirrors to reduce drag, going round every corner wiv the knee on the deck - even if it's wet i'll give it a go - and seeing how far I can push my luck powering out the bends before the back breaks loose.
Can't wait... I love Brands Hatch! :lol:

Going back to the what the thread was about at the start - I have to say, I think it's only fair.

Regardless of anyone's views on speeding, there should be one law for everyone, not an option that if you're loaded and can afford some fancy lawyer, then you can get off...

How often do footballers and people like that get away with things because of who they can afford to represent them...

I seem to remember Alex Ferguson getting off driving down the hard-shoulder of a motorway traffic jam on the excuse that he had the trots and needed to get to a toilet.... can't somehow see anyone else getting away with that one!

yeah, back to the point.

So what if the copper makes a mistake? The drunk was still driving the car, he's still commited an offence - a mistake on the paperwork don't mean that offence suddenly didn't happen. Currently being innocent/guilty depends on what copper writes the ticket, not whether or not you dun it!

Did not take it personally, but I do sometimes only focus on my pleasure as that adrenilin kicks in, I'm sure if a picture of my kids flashed up on the inside of my visor every time, I may change my mind.

You at Brands tonight? If so I may see you there. You may spot me I'll be wearing Rukka unlike the rest of you leather fetishists.

In a second moment of seriousness do you genuinley believe that if everyone stuck to the posted limits there would be no deaths or acidents on the roads??

Yes there there is an irefutable clear link between speed and the consequences of an accident, to do with the laws of physics.

The link between speed and accidents is based on the far more shakey theories on probability, not proven in any research I have seen and certainly not as proven as the laws of physics.

Sure it a not a very nice job to have to do but as long as the human race continue to use motorised coveyenaces there will be accidents.

More and more society is governed by laws based on the lowest common denominator, backside covering and the desire to move risk assessment from being a personal decision to one made by politicians or others in a postion to do so.

Curbside kangaroo courts are the result and the powers that be are well hacked cos they have been outplayed at their own game.

Speeding is a victimless "crime" unless there is an accident.

Ray

First of all, they are not accidents, thats just a term that has come to be associated with what is a collision.

A collision is just that, and therefor there is someone or more at fault!! The reason i believe we have to be controlled by the lowest denominator is because the potential of your act tends to take out others as well as your self!

That's better, it's not speed that causes accidents. It's a road users use of inappropriate speed that contributes to them, "usually" with the road user going too fast for given circumstances and not being able to react in time ;)
...and there, but for the grace of god, go we all! Which is why some form of advanced training or experience will HELP you anticipate danger (not eliminate it) and put yourself out of harms way, it's a shame that some people take that to mean that they can go even faster and remove the safety zone the advanced training/experience was giving them :cool:

Clamping down on speed is one of the easiest ways to tackle the death rate on our roads just like the drink drive thing that saw a huge focus in the past. What is failing to be dealt with is the appalling standard of driving on our roads, like the ********s that sit in the middle lane of the motorway or the guy that is turning right in about two or three miles and moves over well in advance, basic use of mirrors the list goes on and on. Speed doesn’t kill it’s the **** behind the wheel / handle bars.

Murray Mint

Maybe we are getting into semantics here,

How many times when someone is pulled over for speeding do you hear "you might have had an accident"/collision or whatever it might be labelled.

Yes the individual was speeding, irrefutable fact (hopefully) but they haven't had a an accident/collision or whatever, that was merely pointing out something that might have happened that is un-related to speed. Thank you for pointing out something that might happen in the future but hasn't yet become fact.

Perhaps someone can tell me the threshold at which an accident/collision is inevitable or even perhaps some sort of graduated scale.

70 MPH a 0 chance of a collision/accident

90 MPH a 50/50 chance of a collision/accident.

Sure you can't rule out becoming the victim of someone else's accident/collison or whatever but then you are reduced to the lowest "safe" speed 0, zero, nada, nil, to have a zero chance of a collision/RTA or whatever.


Sure other people on the road are a variable but thats where risk management, anticiptation, road craft call it waht you will comes into it.

Use the lowest common denominator and assume that no one can drive/ride "properly" and then again the only safe speed is 0, zero,.............


Raising driving/riding standards is the key, NOT rigidly enforcing a Limit which is what the powers that be are upset about.

Unfortunately improving standards costs money but rigidly enforcing limits brings money in.

"Speed Kills" is just Spin, it doesn't collisions/accidents do and the fast you you the more serious the consequences of such an event becomes,

How about "Speeding can have serious consequences", not quite as snappy is it??

Ray.

There is an amazing amount of hypocrisy and lack of proportion attached to the subject of speeding:

1. Police officers/public figures/celebrities on a regular basis getting away with speeding.
2. People in here banging on about it like andyb - presumably he never speeds on his 999 or in his car?
3. c. 4000 deaths per year (correct me on the figure if you wish - the actual number is not that important here within +/- 10k) attracts a massive focus yet we tolerate 100,000+ deaths a year and the attributable costs that go with smoking and passive smoking.
4. Umpteen thousand deaths per year due to pollution from many causes etc.
5. The lack of focus on bad drivers, dangerous vehicles and other traffic infringements (running red lights around here seems to have exploded with the frustrations of being stuck in traffic)

There's a whole host of inconsitencies in every day life (including those above) which, make a mockery of the near fanatical obsession that the authorities have with speeding vehicles.

If knocking on the door of the bereaved bothers AndyB so much (and what human wouldn't be bothered by it?) then he shouldn't do the job nor should he be supporting fallacious arguments in favour of the "speeding kills" lobby. If we were to follow that argument to their (as in the lobby's) logical conclusion then we would only ever walk anywhere.

You are SO right.

Exemptions. What? For coppers, celebrities and public figures? :rolleyes:

oh I don't know! I know plenty more people who are full of *****e

on a more serious note the anti speeding lobby would tell you that even if you are the only fatality, it costs the taxpayer about £750,000 to clean up and sort out your death.

Whilst neatly avoiding telling us how much other deaths cost us.

Like what, War? well we know that costs millons......

It was my understanding the figure for road deaths was over a million as well:o

Any number of deaths - assaults, smoking, pollution, deaths by falling down the station stairs, errr... deaths caused by the police wrongly shooting innocent people in "anti-terrorist operations". Undoubtedly the beancounters know the cost of all these.

It doesn't matter, again it's misleading to blankly quote a cost without a meaningful comparison. I personally doubt that cost - it's probably dreamt up using some very simple calculation with a whole host of assumptions being made.

As for wars...you underestimate the costs by an order of magnitude 1000's. It's billions - not millions. Like I said - perspective is required and the authorities don't seem to have it.

Well Assaults or murders run into the millions, primary smoking as far as im concerned shouldnt cost us a penny. You know the risks is it that difficult?
Secondary or passive smoking is a different thing.

Yes the London bombings will/have cost millions!

I believe there is a reputable study that has been done on the financial cost of a road death, and it does run into a million. Ill see if i can find it.

Uk figures for 2004

Deaths and injuries on the road

3,221 people were killed in road accidents in 2004
31,130 were seriously injured
246,489 were slightly injured
Taken from www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk


Driving for work

Over one third of all road traffic accidents, about 1,000 deaths a year, involve someone who is at work at the time

Ban the use of the roads for work purposes. The govt needs to act NOW!!

Be tough on work and tough on the causes of work, to reduce the deaths???clearly absurd

Don't confuse cause and effect, and deal with the cause.


Motorcyclists

585 motorcyclists were killed in road accidents in 2004
6,063 were seriously injured
Motorcyclists represent 1% of traffic but represent 19% of deaths and serious injuries
Motorcycle riders are over 40 times more likely to be killed than car drivers

Now you can see why motorcyles are targetted, tough on motorcyclists and tough on the causes or motorcycling, get bikes off the road, problem gone, simple thinking from simple people who have no concept of the idea of cause and effect.:mad: :mad: :mad:

NURSE!!!!!!!!!!!! me tablets


Ray

Laws are written down and applied by courts in a pedantic way for everybodys protection.There wouldnt be any "loop-holes" if the police/CPS did their job properly in the first place.

Presumably you mean treatment should be witheld from smokers? If you do mean that then how about unhealthy eaters, those who don't exercise enough, drug users, alcoholics....where does it stop? How about poor people who can't afford a decent diet?

You know that just isn't practical and isn't fair - it smacks of the extreme nanny state. The authorities forget who they serve.

I'll go so far as to say that the level of deaths we have on the roads is tolerable/acceptable when you consider we have about 20 million vehicles on the roads...3000-4000 deaths per year is a drop in the ocean compared to deaths from other causes which we do little to address. The proportion of those that are killed directly through speeding is even smaller again, yet a huge amount of resources is thrown at the subject. It doesn't make sense.

Good post Ray. I don't know if you have the figures but, I believe somewhere in the region of 10,000 people die each year in domestic accidents.

1999 are to hand, 3952 people killed in domestic accidents, so its time to be tough on living in houses and the causes of living in a house:D

in the same year nearly 2000 people concussed themselves by running into tree trunks, I kid you not, time to chainsaw every tree in the country down then, time to be tough on trees and the causes of trees,

source DTI

Think this is getting a bit off plot now.

Ray.

Yes Ray - off plot but it neatly illustrates the point I was making about sensible and proportional action...keeping things in perspective.

Yes it is wrong that someone '' can get away with it '' once they are caught commiting an offence.

Most people however '' get away with it '' every day of their driving lives.

The average driver ( Including me ) makes mistakes. In addition some drivers are incapable of driving properly because they are idiots or on drugs ( And I include medicines in this ) and some drivers drive in an extremely aggressive manner, using their vehicles as weapons to bully people out of their way.

The police can't be everywhere at once and as andy says they are the ones who have to deal with the aftermath. The speed limits act as a control element. If you police them properly and enough drivers obey them they become a very basic safety measure.

But speeding is only one of a plethora of traffic offences. yet, it is the only one that the authorities seem interested in. It does not make sense if you are trying to have a properly integrated policy towards road safety. Errrrr....hang on....we don't have one, do we? :rolleyes:

twpd

Yes I agree, but speeding can be measured with ( In theory ) reasonable accuracy and with few grey areas.

If the camera / patrol car says you were exceeding the limit then you are guilty in law. If you are driving badly / dangerously then it is up to the judgement of an individual police officer who stops you and can be challenged, apparently successfully in court.

Where things seem to fall down at the moment is in a lack of police traffic officers and a lack of real penalties for the worst offenders. I.E. the latest one I read of was a young man driving at well over the speed limit and performing dangerous overtakes and eventually killing a young woman in another car. His sentence I believe was 4 years, so he may serve say 18 months / two years max?

He drove like an idiot and killed someone. If I handled my rifle like an idiot and killed someone I would probably get 7 years minimum.

I drive for a living ( As near as I can to ' the system ' ) and see some abysmal
driving every day, but I can drive all day and see no police traffic cars, so who is keeping me safe?

The £750k was the cost 9 years ago, so no doubt it will be £1m now. That figure was given to me by the President of the ILE, (Institute of Lighting Engineers), which is the professional body who design our lighting for roadways. Their interest is of course that lit roadways have less accidents than similar unlit roadways. And for us on 2 wheels they are of course much easier to navigate at speed at night.

TWPD, not sure why you are getting upset with me when all I am stating is what those who want to curb speeding would say about the cost of road death.

In the interest of diplomacy I will refrain from making comment about smoking.

too true, the worst I see regularly are

undertaking
racing from the on ramp to the third lane immediately with scant regard for what is behind.
running red lights in London where I drive daily
tailgateing

I'm not upset with you. I don't know where you get that idea from. Can you explain please?

The crux of this issue is that there are serious flaws in the arguements that the powers that be use to try and justify the focus on speed enforcement.


Some are taking perfectly legal action to try and expose those flaws fully. The government is in a mess legislation wise, both in complexity and ambiguity with other areas of both it's own legislation and that coming from Europe.

The police are in effect, caught in the middle, trying to fully enforce poor complex legislation against an increasingly sceptical public and legal challenges from the public with the time, energy and cash to do so.

The powers that be are relying on ever more complex technology that is criminalising an increasing numbers of the public, then the local scamerati use bully boy tactics when the loopholes in the poor legislation that are trying to enforce are exposed when people don't just roll over and take the points and fine and choose to got to court to defend themselves using the very same legislation that got them there in the first place or other legislation that is at odds with it.

All the original article that was mentioned at the start of this thread illustrates IMHO is that the bully boy/scare tactics have stepped up a level, i.e. have your day in court and loose then you'll get a big bill for costs. It does appear that precedent may have already been set to kibosh this tactic.

A very interesting court room battle to be fought in the next two weeks:D

The game goes on, no one likes to lose, especially on a technicality or because their understanding of the rules of the game wasn't quite as good as the oppostions, or the person in charge of the game has a different agenda (Ask Flav.............is FIA really Ferrari International Assistence)



Ray.

I just spent 15 mins replying to this - only to lose it when i posted - now i can't be arsed to do it again:mad: