Rising speed penalties pondered

[VectraMan]

There's no such thing as speed alone.

I speed alone most days.

[TimberWolf]

Speeding is against the law…of diminishing returns. Fuel consumption (and chances of being nicked) goes roughly with the square of the speed but journey time only linear. Try working out how much time you save by going at 90 mph compared to 80.

[vetran]

I have no problem with the speed penalties going up for those that exceed the limit dramatically, however I fear the authorities will combine this with dropping the speed limit on just about every road that has a footpath to 20mph.

More traffic crawls around town at absurdly slow speeds persecuted by speed cameras because we can't actually deal with the causes of accidents.

They need to look at the causes individually not overall statistics, however its cheaper to put in speed restrictions to look like they are doing something, in the future history will look back on this era and describe it as the time of the great speed camera con.

my limited take on it :

Excessive speed alone accounts for ~ 7% of accidents (Government figures multiple studies). Causes of crash involving unexpected object / Pedestrian in carraigeway is 43%, which one does it make make the more sense to deal with?

Car -> pedestrian collisions rise at night when the pubs are full / chucking out. Many pedestrians hit are well over the drink drive limit. Is its the car driver's fault if some drunk wanders out in front of them? Apparently so.

Most motorist deaths are out of town. Many involve new drivers. Many are speed and or alchohol / drugs related. More eduacation and restrictions on new drivers (maybe a speed restrictor at 55-60mph like lorries). It would also teach them lane discipline. Why not a 100mph speed restrictor fitted to all new vehicles? Stops excessive speed on motorways.

Most motorists wearing seatbelts driving a modern car in a crash under 40mph will walk away, so changing the speed limit below 40mph will have no effect on these deaths. Actively prosecuting the many that don't wear seat belts would. How about an automatic seatbelt camera?

Most pedestrians hit under 30 survive, so changing the speed limit makes sense there. However seperating pedestrians and cars plus prosecuting foolhardy pedestrians may have more effect and cause less congestion.

I haven't seen figures on how many accidents involve habitual illegal drivers (repeatedly drunk / banned etc) and those comitting crime who will ignore speed cameras etc. I imagine there will be a high percentage of these. 20% of traffic / speed camera fines in London aren't paid so its likely this reflects the proportion of illegals. Upping the punishments for illegal drivers would make a difference, imprisonment would get them off the roads.

[threaded]

Surely a car is only a danger when it's moving. Cars not moving do not tend to kill people. So if you drive everywhere as fast as possible you reduce the time your car is moving and so reduce the chance of running somebody over.

Very good point. A nobel prize winning physics professor made a similar point about contraflows.

[TimberWolf]

Excessive speed alone accounts for ~ 7% of accidents (Government figures multiple studies). Causes of crash involving unexpected object / Pedestrian in carraigeway is 43%, which one does it make make the more sense to deal with?

How can the stats for excessive speed (6%) and unexpected object collisions (43%) be separated - the two are related (by time). That is, both are related to excessive speed.

Car -> pedestrian collisions rise at night when the pubs are full / chucking out. Many pedestrians hit are well over the drink drive limit. Is its the car driver's fault if some drunk wanders out in front of them? Apparently so.

Yes, without question IMO.

I agree with some of what you say, but this is too much. If a motorist hits a drunk, a child or a cyclist then he is driving too fast. Of course there may be exceptions sometimes, but these would be few and far between if I were judge. Off with his head!

[vetran]

How can the stats for excessive speed (6%) and unexpected object collisions (43%) be separated - the two are related (by time). That is, both are related to excessive speed.

Yes, without question IMO.

I agree with some of what you say, but this is too much. If a motorist hits a drunk, a child or a cyclist then he is driving too fast. Of course there may be exceptions sometimes, but these would be few and far between if I were judge. Off with his head!

Why is the driver driving too fast? If he is within the legal limit he is not 'driving too fast' according to the law, if he misses the subtle signs that a pedestrian has decided to play dodgems with a one ton car he may be inexperienced / tired / distracted or just unlucky. Choice you have is do you drop the legal limit to 4 mph, assess every driver constantly or do you stop the objects / pedestrians entering the carraigeway?

In the last few years I have repeatedly avoided (sometimes only just) pedestrians & cyclists attempting suicide by leaping fences and running / cycling across fast moving traffic. None were my fault, frequently little warning or indication were given and the objects in the carraigeway were frequently in dark clothing so almost invisible. I'd be more impressed if the police & council dealt with the cause and investigate the accident, not see it as an opportunity to install a placebo camera.

Why is the driver the only one required to take responsibility? That's the question, it takes two to tango or tangle. Fix the problem, not attack the easy target.

[NickFitz]

More eduacation

The irony...

[TimberWolf]

Why is the driver driving too fast? If he is within the legal limit he is not 'driving too fast' according to the law, if he misses the subtle signs that a pedestrian has decided to play dodgems with a one ton car he may be inexperienced / tired / distracted or just unlucky. Choice you have is do you drop the legal limit to 4 mph, assess every driver constantly or do you stop the objects / pedestrians entering the carraigeway?

Speed limits aren’t targets and may not be low enough to meet all situations, for instance at throwing out time or school start time. What’s so important about your errand that’s you’d risk someone’s life for the sake of shaving a few seconds off your journey?

In the last few years I have repeatedly avoided (sometimes only just) pedestrians & cyclists attempting suicide by leaping fences and running / cycling across fast moving traffic. None were my fault, frequently little warning or indication were given and the objects in the carraigeway were frequently in dark clothing so almost invisible.

Why not learn from experience and slow down? And why should the public have to pay for yet more nannying infrastructure for the sake a minority of errant drivers? Getting them off the road should be the priority, hopefully before they injure someone.

[BrilloPad]

"In the last few years I have repeatedly avoided (sometimes only just) pedestrians & cyclists attempting suicide by leaping fences and running / cycling across fast moving traffic. "

Why not learn from experience and slow down?

Thats fine to say to a driver. But what about those cyclists who go charging round endangering pedestrians? In London you can't even cross the pavement without looking. Recently at bank I saw a cyclist shoot a red light and was caught by a policeman - who just stopped him. Should have jailed him IMO.

[TimberWolf]

But what about those cyclists who go charging round endangering pedestrians?

Accidentally stick out an elbow.