Speed and Misconceptions about it

[andreis]

I've got a link here:

http://www.carbibles.com/speeding_facts.html

that sums up knowledge about speed and speeding and how it's perceived.

Since reading Proficient Motorcycling and other bike-related books, I've been exposed to a pretty good amount of info on the subject, but have found the writings on the linked page pretty cohesive and to the point and consider it important enough to point out to people.

Have a read (especially of the section on speed cameras) and share your thoughts. Mine sound something along the lines of :

I'm tired of having the government spend money for speed enforcement when they've got so many more important things to do to improve road safety, on top of which, the speed cameras that they so heavily invest in doesn't benefit motorists, in fact it's the opposite

[The Idle Biker]

There's some really good information on that link, very interesting indeed. Especially the cause of accidents,

Out of interest whats the speed camera policy like in Romania? Is it pursued as avidly by the local authorities as it is in the UK?

[tweakedtay]

Wow, very well written info link. I pretty damn well agree with everything he said about the topic. Speeding is NOT the problem, idiots are! and we have ALOT of them over here..... I also love the picture at the bottom.....

[Milky Bar Kid]

Only thing I would like to say is that when I go to an accident and in the report state "excessive speed" I generally am referring to "excessive speed for the road conditions or lay out" which doesn't actually mean someone is speeding, just that they have gone into a corner too hot and run outta skill! I just didn't think that article differentiated between speeding and excessive speed.

Interesting read though.

[L3nny]

Most speed camera in my area are not on bad bends, crossings or outside schools etc, they are on straight clear roads. The same time the cameras went up the limits also dropped to 50.

I have yet to meet anyone who thinks speed camera are a good idea so it begs the question why are the people we voted to run things for us allowed to get away with this??

[andreis]

Out of interest whats the speed camera policy like in Romania? Is it pursued as avidly by the local authorities as it is in the UK?

Well, not that many speed cameras, almost nonexistent now (they've been ruled out, they used to be in every 30mph village, which means every km or so...). BUT plenty of police in their place, who now have a new type of radar gun (not laser, not typical radar) which is not detectable by normal radar detectors (there are some that can catch it, but they're really expensive..). What pis*es me off about them is that they'll let right of way violations go unpunished but enforce speed limitation on deserted stretches of road...

Only thing I would like to say is that when I go to an accident and in the report state "excessive speed" I generally am referring to "excessive speed for the road conditions or lay out" which doesn't actually mean someone is speeding, just that they have gone into a corner too hot and run outta skill! I just didn't think that article differentiated between speeding and excessive speed.

Interesting read though.

I know what you mean by "excessive speed" here, but do note that the main cause of accidents stated is : "Site effects. This includes things such as people's estimation of their speed based on the geometry of their surroundings". So they do take into account if the driver adjusts the speed properly (giving one self the necessary time to react to events) for the location. But I do mostly agree with you, this is not made sufficiently explicit in the presentation

[Milky Bar Kid]

It's a common thing, if we state that excessive speed was the cause of the RTC then people quickly shout "but I wasn't speeding!" and we have to explain that we realise they weren't breaking the speed limit but that they were travelling too fst for the road lay out or the conditions and then they accept it. A lot of emphasis is put on "speeding" but the key thing is appropriate speed. Sometimes 30mph in 60mph zone is appropriate sometimes 60mph is fine. I am rambling now....

[andreis]

Neah, you're not rambling and I do agree with you on the matter. It just goes to show that legal set speed limits have nothing to do with what the appropriate speed for the situation is. And it provides people with a personal disclaimer, as you say, "But I wasn't speeding". What it also does is provide a false sense of security and the dumbing down of drivers, who consider that the legal speed IS the speed they should be traveling.

http://www.inspirational-quotes-short-funny-stuff.com/images/funny-street-signs-speed-limit-whatever.jpg

[TamSV]

I have yet to meet anyone who thinks speed camera are a good idea so it begs the question why are the people we voted to run things for us allowed to get away with this??

It's not the Govt that's the problem. It's the moronic public (us lot) that likes speed cameras. There was an AA poll last year that had support for cameras at 70-odd percent.

When they were switching them off somewhere in England (Oxfordshire?) last year the local residents were in uproar. Apparently we love em.

[timwilky]

I do not regard speed as excessive or not. Simply appropriate or not.

My argument is a speed camera will not trigger at 60 on an NSL road, but in fog with sod all visability the speed is inappropriate. I do not regard 100+ on a motorway at 2am with no traffic for miles as excessive or inappropriate. I have been waved goodbye by traffic plod after driving with them at 135 for 20 miles and stopped and told off for 90 in a 30. But nobody has actually said to me I am dangerous or a liability etc. Infact the copper who stopped me for 90 in a 30 said I know you can see for miles and there is no traffic on the road at this time of day. But in 6 months there will be ice. To which I said I would not be doing that speed if I suspected ice. He smiled.

[DJFridge]

I'm presuming, MBK, from your comments that you work in the law enforcement side of things. It's good to see you pointing out the difference between "excessive speed for the conditions" and "legally speeding". I think a lot of people, drivers and bikers, tend to assume that traffic police treat all speeding as excessive speed and I wonder if it is because you get lumped in with the "one speed fits all" situation with speed cameras which, as timwilky rightly points out, have no relation to actual road conditions at a particular point in time. It's hugely frustrating having to do 50mph down the Kingston bypass in the evening when there is little or no other traffic, or 70mph along the A27 when the nearest car is a mile away!

My boys occasional ask what the speed limits are for and why they are what they are. I tend to explain it that 20, 30 and 40mph limits are usually there for safety reasons (built up areas, junctions, pedestrians etc), as are some 50 and 60mph zones. The national limits, on the other hand, are entirely arbitrary figures, thought up nearly 50 years ago and bear no relation to modern motor vehicles or, sometimes, to the roads they are applied to. I almost always ignore them (only joking, officer). I drive in France several times a year and they do at least have a two level limit, with a higher limit for dry roads and a lower when it's raining or foggy (I know it should be commonsense anyway but there you go).

[martin15s]

Although not a dedicated traffic police officer, MBK is actually quite correct with regard "excessive speed for the conditions". I spent 19 years as a traffic sergeant and class 1 advanced Driver in the Met (London). We too had to give an assessment as to the causal factors. I think it fair to say that in many, many cases that speed was a definite contributory factor. As in my signature "anyone can drive fast, it is knowing when it is safe to do so". This means driving according to prevailing road, traffic and weather conditions, irrespective of the actual speed limit.

My eldest son was killed when the newly qualified driver of the car he was in lost control on a bend in fog - apart from the obvious factors of inexperience, weather conditions and road layout, speed was a contributory factor - too fast for the road and weather conditions.

Criticising a rider/driver over his/her driving ability has always been a very emotive issue, and is the one main area which will always bring police into conflict with the public. Being highly trained it was , and still is, obvious that many many road users are extremely inept. Lack of adequate training is partly to blame, and I do accept that speed camera enforcement has become ineffective through over use. As I have stated before, many years ago we campaigned for more realistic speed limits but the "authorities" over ruled us.The answer?........over to you....

[Red Herring]

I would second everything that Martin15s has just said, with one exception. It's not that the training isn't available, it's just that most people think they don't need it. Unfortunately it is the sad reality that most drivers, and even most motorcyclists, think they are better than they really are, and very few are prepared to invest in being better.

As motorcyclists we spend a fortune making our bikes better, the reality is the cheapest, easiest and most effective mod you could make is to the rider. If everybody could work out appropriate speed we wouldn't need speed limits. Unfortunately they can't, so we legislate to the lowest common denominator. Oh well, sermon over......

[Bibio]

Unfortunately it is the sad reality that most drivers, and even most motorcyclists, think they are better than they really are


i agree with that part. i too often see riders with motorcycles that are way to overpowered for them. they go blasting up straights only to go round the next bend almost upright and like a 50p piece. and all i think is oohhh look more spare parts for ebay. its a shame really that these people think that they can ride, where in reality they are only kidding themselves.

i'll be the first to admit that i cant ride all that well. so i ride within my capability. i have seen too many friends in hospital and in agony.

[DJFridge]

I would second everything that Martin15s has just said, with one exception. It's not that the training isn't available, it's just that most people think they don't need it. Unfortunately it is the sad reality that most drivers, and even most motorcyclists, think they are better than they really are, and very few are prepared to invest in being better.

As motorcyclists we spend a fortune making our bikes better, the reality is the cheapest, easiest and most effective mod you could make is to the rider. If everybody could work out appropriate speed we wouldn't need speed limits. Unfortunately they can't, so we legislate to the lowest common denominator. Oh well, sermon over......

Not a bad sermon, Father! You've missed one important thing about training though - it's expensive. I was very lucky that I found an instructor who was flexible enough to take me out on a few lessons to see how I was doing, and make sure I was ready for the tests, without having the expense and time off work that an official DAS course would have cost. I wouldn't have been able to do it otherwise and it puts a lot of people off any sort of proper training at all.

i agree with that part. i too often see riders with motorcycles that are way to overpowered for them. they go blasting up straights only to go round the next bend almost upright and like a 50p piece. and all i think is oohhh look more spare parts for ebay. its a shame really that these people think that they can ride, where in reality they are only kidding themselves.

i'll be the first to admit that i cant ride all that well. so i ride within my capability. i have seen too many friends in hospital and in agony.

It isn't just bikers, Bibio, round here the chavs get alloys off their mates at Halfords, LEDs off eBay and driving skills off Grand Theft Auto. They then crash their badly lowered Saxos and Corsa on our local roads, usually only killing their unfortunate girlfriends in the process. I guess the chavvy little b@stards are the only ones properly strapped in.

The biggest problem is that, when you learn drive or ride, you are taught how to pass the test, plain and simple. Learning how to actually ride / drive on your own only comes after.

[Red Herring]

Not a bad sermon, Father! You've missed one important thing about training though - it's expensive.........

I guess it depends on what you call expensive. Less than £150 for the basic IAM introduction isn't that bad when you consider what you spend on your bike. I know the IAM has a bit of a reputation of being boring but not all the groups, or the individuals within each group, are the same and you only have to find one you gel with to get some benefit. Most road safety isn't about riding skills anyhow, it's about road skills, and they are two completely different things. You don't need to be the best on the brakes, or round the corners, to avoid being involved in a crash, you just need to see it coming and do something to avoid it involving you, and I don't mean waiting until the car has pulled out in front of you and then braking, I mean slowing down when you see the sign for the junction....or the roof of the house over the hedge. That's your first tip for free.

[DJFridge]

Most road safety isn't about riding skills anyhow, it's about road skills, and they are two completely different things.

That was sort of my point really. You don't really learn to ride or drive until after you've done the test. And I take your point about IAM not being that pricey in relation to other biking costs - as it goes, Wifey and I are seriously considering doing one of the local Bikesafe days (at Arundel Firestation if anyone's interested) - it's the learning properly in the first place that's expensive.

Oh and free tip not actually required (I may be new here but I've been accident and point free for about 20 years, with 5 of those doing over 45k miles a year as a supposedly accident-prone sales rep) but the sentiment is appreciated.

[Milky Bar Kid]

That was sort of my point really. You don't really learn to ride or drive until after you've done the test. And I take your point about IAM not being that pricey in relation to other biking costs - as it goes, Wifey and I are seriously considering doing one of the local Bikesafe days (at Arundel Firestation if anyone's interested) - it's the learning properly in the first place that's expensive.

Oh and free tip not actually required (I may be new here but I've been accident and point free for about 20 years, with 5 of those doing over 45k miles a year as a supposedly accident-prone sales rep) but the sentiment is appreciated.

Oh, and now you have gone and jinxed it....

[thulfi]

Oh and free tip not actually required (I may be new here but I've been accident and point free for about 20 years, with 5 of those doing over 45k miles a year as a supposedly accident-prone sales rep) but the sentiment is appreciated.

Never turn down free tips from experienced ex police bikers!

[Specialone]

IMO, I think anybody can always benefit from extra training, not matter how experienced, I certainly could.

I think my training needs to be skill based not so much road sense if you like as I've been driving 22 odd years and do spot a lot of hazards, that said I do struggle to absorb all the info when going at a highish speed so concentrate on the the more important things, so could benefit from training on that side as well.

IAM does put me off but there are others around.

[-Ralph-]

Not a bad sermon, Father! You've missed one important thing about training though - it's expensive. I was very lucky that I found an instructor who was flexible enough to take me out on a few lessons to see how I was doing, and make sure I was ready for the tests

It's the learning properly in the first place that's expensive.

You are talking about the "training" you received in order to pass your bike test? That isn't training in the sense we are talking about here. That's training you to pass a test, nothing more, and it certainly isn't "learning properly in the first place"

Criticising a rider/driver over his/her driving ability has always been a very emotive issue, and is the one main area which will always bring police into conflict with the public.

It's not that the training isn't available, it's just that most people think they don't need it.

Oh and free tip not actually required (I may be new here but I've been accident and point free for about 20 years, with 5 of those doing over 45k miles a year as a supposedly accident-prone sales rep) but the sentiment is appreciated.

You just proved these points in spectacular fashion. Well done!

[-Ralph-]

Driving groups and individuals like me have always argued that speed cameras are only ever installed to make money, and this belief has always put us at odds with the government's hard line. I was once served with a cease and desist order against my old website (The Speedtrap Bible) by the department of transport, West Sussex police and Thames Valley police. They claimed that by giving out technical information on the operation of different speed monitoring devices, as well as their locations and how to fight speeding tickets, I was essentially putting drivers in danger because (and here's the mantra again) "speed kills and you are condoning speeding."

This is very annoying, we certainly live in a media censored state already to an extent, but how far can it be allowed to go?

The police and governments should be spending more time on educating people to drive properly and pay attention - less loss-of-control or inattention accidents would be the result of that. They should spend more time making pedestrians responsible for their own actions instead of blaming drivers. That would reduce the pedestrian culling. They should spend more time and resources banning cellphones and arresting drivers for drunk and drugged driving

I certainly agree with this, and I'd be very interested in the point of view of the police officers on this. Do you agree? Is there conflict back at the station with your superiors when they send you out on a speed trapping exercise? What do you guys think of the policy makers?



The author makes some good points and I agree with a lot of his sentiments, but like many who make a lot of noise about an issue, he does come across in that article as a narrow minded tit who can only see one side of the debate.

Turn his stats around.

What this means is that in 7.3% of the accidents, speed was one of many factors, and in only 6% of the accidents was it a definite causal factor.


http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=4031

I just googled for that, not done much, but lets just accept the figures for the sake of argument. If you sum total the bottom line it shows 3.4 million casualties of any type, and half a million killed or seriously injured, over the 10 year period. 6% of those 200 thousand, or 30 thousand respectively.

So by this authors own statistics, 30 thousand people were killed or seriously injured by inapproriate speed in a ten year period. Does that sound to you like a problem that the UK authorities should be ignoring? I know I just asked you to accept figures for sake or argument, and then used them to state a fact, which is a bit daft but it's illustrating a point, whether those figures are right or not a significant number of deaths and serious injuries can be attributed to speed.

Speed is definitely an issue, we need speed limits and speed enforcement. Cameras are not effective though and in many cases they are just revenue generation in my opinion. Many speed limits themselves are nonsense, such as the blanket 50 limit now covering much of Warwickshire, that Lenny was talking about earlier. And accepting for the sake of argument the 6% statistic is correct and not just spin that this author has used to prove his point, I so, so, wish that traffic policing spent 6% of it's resources on tackling speed, and the other 94% on other issues, such as education of drivers.

[martin15s]

The police method of driving, "Roadcraft", is based on observation, anticipation, and being in the right position on the road, at the right speed and with the right gear engaged for the circumstances. It sounds very wordy but in essence is so simple. We cannot train every road user to the highest police standards but we can encourage better forward observation and anticipation. I don't believe that police should be responsible for driver training. The ratio of experienced and highly trained police riders/drivers is actually extremely small, and cost alone would prohibit such a move. There is no simple answer to the question. I think that a really radical re-appraisal of basic driving tuition is one way to address the problem. This, however, would entail far more expensive and longer learner driving courses and would probably be extremely unpopular. Many countries (certainly here in Spain) insist that newly qualified drivers and riders display a different coloured "L" plate (green here) for 12 months, and impose a maximum speed limit of 80kph (50mph) during that period. This alone will not make drivers safer but does tend to encourage an awareness of the use of speed. I will admit, that despite the toughness of Spanish driving tuition and and testing, the quality of driving is still extremely poor. That only indicates to me, that despite tougher training, many people are convinced that already know everything. My 19 year old son is currently waiting to his practical for his A2 licence here - yes I AM worried for him - but thankfully he has absorbed many of the points that I put to him. He still thinks that he knows more than he actually does.

My apologies for the length of this post, but the problem is so great that any possible solution will need page after page.

Even if you are very experienced, there are always things to learn. At the very least, please try to at least read the "Roadcraft" book and incorporate the ideals into your riding and driving. Remember, the police learn to drive systematically and safely.

[Milky Bar Kid]

The police method of driving, "Roadcraft", is based on observation, anticipation, and being in the right position on the road, at the right speed and with the right gear engaged for the circumstances. It sounds very wordy but in essence is so simple. We cannot train every road user to the highest police standards but we can encourage better forward observation and anticipation. I don't believe that police should be responsible for driver training. The ratio of experienced and highly trained police riders/drivers is actually extremely small, and cost alone would prohibit such a move. There is no simple answer to the question. I think that a really radical re-appraisal of basic driving tuition is one way to address the problem. This, however, would entail far more expensive and longer learner driving courses and would probably be extremely unpopular. Many countries (certainly here in Spain) insist that newly qualified drivers and riders display a different coloured "L" plate (green here) for 12 months, and impose a maximum speed limit of 80kph (50mph) during that period. This alone will not make drivers safer but does tend to encourage an awareness of the use of speed. I will admit, that despite the toughness of Spanish driving tuition and and testing, the quality of driving is still extremely poor. That only indicates to me, that despite tougher training, many people are convinced that already know everything. My 19 year old son is currently waiting to his practical for his A2 licence here - yes I AM worried for him - but thankfully he has absorbed many of the points that I put to him. He still thinks that he knows more than he actually does.

My apologies for the length of this post, but the problem is so great that any possible solution will need page after page.

Even if you are very experienced, there are always things to learn. At the very least, please try to at least read the "Roadcraft" book and incorporate the ideals into your riding and driving. Remember, the police learn to drive systematically and safely.

Today as all days, I will drive this car according to they system of car control which is progressive, smooth, safe and leaves nothing to chance.....:notworthy:

I have done a four week response course and the amount you learn from it is phenomenal. You could believe you were an observant driver and go on this and realise that no, you're not really!

Ralph, in answer to your question - in our area, we work closely with the traffic, infact, I have spent quite a bit corroborating traffic officers. Even if they are sent on a speed trap by our SENIOR (not superior) officers, they are still looking for other offences and they will deal with them if they see them occurring. In respect of offences such as drink and drug driving, the best way, much to the distaste of many on here, is to go out and stop vehicles. Most of the ones I have caught haven't been the cliched weaving all over the road with no lights on at 20mph, they have been driving well, or to a reasonable standard, and I have stopped them for a document check or for something minor such as seatbelt.

[-Ralph-]

I should have reworded my post, 94% of authority resources, not police resources. Whilst I think that driver education certainly should be part of the police remit, I agree that proactive driver training should not.

MBK, distaste at being stopped is silly IMO. I'd much rather be stopped by a human than get an NIP through the post. But if that police officer walks up to my window, spends 30 seconds warning me about speed or writes me a ticket, then goes straight back to pointing the hairdryer down the road, I'm not going to be happy!

Exactly that has happened to me on more than one or two occasions. What a wasted opportunity with the resources my taxes have paid for. I know they are looking for anything suspicious, and smelling for alcohol, but how about:

"I'm just going to give your tyres a quick look over sir."
"I'm just going to run through a bulb check with you sir, please can you follow my instructions whilst I stand at the front and back of the car."
"Do you have a mobile phone with you sir? You do? Do you have a handsfree kit in the car sir? No? OK, well please be aware that you can't make any calls whilst driving and if it rings you must ignore it. I suggest you switch it off when you are driving. If you must use the phone in the car, handsfree kits can be bought in the supermarket for less that 10 pounds now sir, please consider getting one."
"Before you go, I'll just let you know that we have had an accident on this road this morning due to black ice, please take care, have a good day"

Putting a man in a van with a camera is a massive waste of money, when you could spend the same money putting a police officer in an unmarked car on the same road.

[keith_d]

With all these comments on improving driving/riding standards I think we're going to end up at another old favourite. Should there be regular retests, say every 5 years, for all road users?

Anyone feel like starting a new thread???

[thefallenangel]

The first problem is with testing. My license lets me pass in a 107 for example and then that afternoon go and jump in a tipper wagon and drive off on a motorway which i haven't been trained on.

Being 23 I have passed my license and in 5 1/2 years clocked up 120-130k in various vehicles from my C1 to a tipper wagon to my bike. I have also done the Ron Haslam race school and my pass plus and can accept my driving still isn't really at an acceptable standard. I wish there was some way with a police trained instructor to do a course on observation awareness because i would feel a lot better and would do the course. If people are more aware of things then they can control their speed to allow them to process these issues.

[timwilky]

My employers are perhaps a little enlightened, in the 26 years I have worked for them, they have sent me on 3 driving courses, they take the view that you have to be qualified to use a machine tool in the factory and a car is just another tool. Having served an apprenticeship or passed a driving test does not mean you have maintained your skill and knowledge and they need to establish you are still capable of using company supplied equipment.

The first was a week driving with an ex met instructor. I initially thought I was wasting my time, until I realised I was actually driving faster and smoother. Interestingly he praised my observation and anticipation but put that down to having an A on my licence.

The second course they sent me on was 2 days on defensive driving. How to avoid pranging a company car. Not necessarily by my actions but to expect/anticipate the actions of others as well.

The 3rd course was on economical driving. My god boring, but at times I practice it when I am burning my own fuel and in no hurry.

Maybe if more people got some form of training the smidsys etc would not be quite so common.

personally 30/40 for a reason, NSL because an idiot thought it would be a good thing to have a limit at a time when engines started to exceed tha capabilities of frame, suspension, steering, brakes, tyres and structure.

Maybe now these have improved perhaps the NSL should be reviewed, particularly if it will reduce the amount of bunching on the motorways etc.

[Red Herring]

There seem to be two discussions going on here, the first being that stated by the Op all about the need and effectiveness of speed limits, and the second about rider/driver training/ability. I think that one comes about because of the other. If we really want to reduce the level of legislation (and it's enforcement) needed to keep an acceptable level of safety on our roads then we need to take responsibility for it ourselves. Believe it or not the police don't go out on patrol with the intention of sticking on everybody they can (well most don;t....), they go out to try and do their job which is the protection of life and property, the laws are simply the tools they use to achieve this. Much as I like Ralphs idea that every engagement with the law should be completely individual to the circumstances I also have to recognize that this isn't always very practicable.
Just imagine if you were to get stopped by the police and the officer started with something like this....

Sir, I'm going to be reporting you for driving without due care and attention because you've just been riding your bike along this straight piece of road that has houses and driveways on both sides at 80mph. Now I know you haven't hit anything and nothing has pulled out in front of you, but I couldn't help but notice that there were three cars coming the other way and the front one was slowing as if the driver was looking for an entrance. In my opinion if they had suddenly braked the cars behind might have swerved out onto your side of the road and I don't think at the speed you were going you would have been able to avoid them. Furthermore had one of the residents pulled out of their driveway in front of you without looking properly or appreciating the speed you were approaching at then you wouldn't have been able to swerve out of their way because of the cars coming the other way.........

I would suggest if they did then most of you would argue with him, and if you didn't then a half decent brief would, and they would be right to because it is all based on variable circumstance, "what if's" and opinion. It just isn't practicable. Now a half decent rider would recognize all of those circumstances and adjust their speed appropriately, but the average rider/driver doesn't, so we impose a speed limit that gives everybody half a chance. It also makes the police officers job a whole lot easier, I see someone riding like that they get done for speeding, no arguments, no difference of opinion, just a plain fact. Your were doing 80 and the limit was 40. Of course, if the three cars hadn't been coming the other way it might be a different story........maybe!

[martin15s]

There have been some very interesting, responsible and informed comments on this thread from a small minority, but what is of more importance is the complete lack of response from the usual knee down and wheelie brigade. Apathy rules???

[-Ralph-]

Much as I like Ralphs idea that every engagement with the law should be completely individual to the circumstances I also have to recognize that this isn't always very practicable.

Just imagine if you were to get stopped by the police and the officer started with something like this....

Sir, I'm going to be reporting you for driving without due care and attention because you've just been riding your bike along this straight piece of road that has houses and driveways on both sides at 80mph....

opinion...

Are you drawing a comparison to my post here or am I misreading it? Just that I don't see the comparison to my post. I'm not suggesting the officer should use much opinion.

Bulb check, tyre check - its all legal or it's not, law gives the officer some options, to issue a default rectification notice or an FPN

Mobile phone - just giving some advice, a tiny bit of opinion by suggesting that the driver switches it off, but as he's not being accused of anything there's little of relevance to end up arguing over

Accident - just giving out a bit of useful info

I don't see why this isn't practicable TBH assuming the driver has stopped in a safe place, it's not asking the officer to base anything on his opinion, just to check if the driver is complying with the law and do a little bit of education. All it means is spending more time with each motorist, which requires more resources, so stop spending money on Citroen Berlingo's with a special window in the back, and spend it on more cops.

I honestly think if people thought they had half a chance of being stopped and their vehicles checked, they would check them more often themselves.

[martin15s]

Are you drawing a comparison to my post here or am I misreading it? Just that I don't see the comparison to my post. I'm not suggesting the officer should use much opinion.

Bulb check, tyre check - its all legal or it's not, law gives the officer some options, to issue a default rectification notice or an FPN

Mobile phone - just giving some advice, a tiny bit of opinion by suggesting that the driver switches it off, but as he's not being accused of anything there's little of relevance to end up arguing over

Accident - just giving out a bit of useful info

I don't see why this isn't practicable TBH assuming the driver has stopped in a safe place, it's not asking the officer to base anything on his opinion, just to check if the driver is complying with the law and do a little bit of education. All it means is spending more time with each motorist, which requires more resources, so stop spending money on Citroen Berlingo's with a special window in the back, and spend it on more cops.

I honestly think if people thought they had half a chance of being stopped and their vehicles checked, they would check them more often themselves.

From my own personal experience advice was always given, either as part of an FPN or summons, or just plain advice/warning. Every situation is different and it is up to the officer's discretion as to how it should be handled. In theory a person's attitude should have no bearing on the outcome but even police officers are but human.

[Dicky Ticker]

I think Ralph is saying that he would rather speak to the officer concerned where you can put your point across as to why you were doing whatever and the officer can use his discretion.
In a way agree with both points of view

[DJFridge]

You are talking about the "training" you received in order to pass your bike test? That isn't training in the sense we are talking about here. That's training you to pass a test, nothing more, and it certainly isn't "learning properly in the first place"

Sorry, the bit you've quoted was a bit badly worded and, in my defense, my exact words elsewhere in this post were:

The biggest problem is that, when you learn drive or ride, you are taught how to pass the test, plain and simple. Learning how to actually ride / drive on your own only comes after.

You just proved these points in spectacular fashion. Well done!

And I'm a bit confused - have I proved those points by saying that I AM thinking of doing extra training or because you think that I think I don't need any?

As it happens, I try to learn just a little every time I go out on the bike. Note that I don't say "get better", just a bit more experienced each time. One of my instructors when I was learning was very keen to instill the idea that you never stop learning into all his pupils and I figured if it was good enough for him, it was good enough for me.

Oh and regarding my turning down "free tips from experienced ex police bikers!", I think it was more, "That's something I'm aware of already but thanks anyway." which isn't quite the same thing. And, incidentally, the response would have been the same if I'd even known that Red Herring WAS an ex police biker. Rather than a trawlerman (no offense meant R H, now or previously)! I'm actually constantly surprised by how many people on the site are serving or ex police. All power to you. I like my nice safe job and never had any interest in joining up, but I'm extremely grateful for all you guys that do.

I think I'm leaving this particular post now before I cause (or receive) any more unintended offense! Anyway, I've got a chicken that won't roast itself...

[Red Herring]

Are you drawing a comparison to my post here or am I misreading it? Just that I don't see the comparison to my post. I'm not suggesting the officer should use much opinion.


Hi Ralph, sorry, it was this bit of your previous post I was alluring to....

"Speed is definitely an issue, we need speed limits and speed enforcement. Cameras are not effective though and in many cases they are just revenue generation in my opinion. Many speed limits themselves are nonsense, such as the blanket 50 limit now covering much of Warwickshire, that Lenny was talking about earlier. And accepting for the sake of argument the 6% statistic is correct and not just spin that this author has used to prove his point, I so, so, wish that traffic policing spent 6% of it's resources on tackling speed, and the other 94% on other issues, such as education of drivers."

I would love to spend 94% of my time educating drivers, unfortunately the majority of drivers don't always listen, or learn.

Having given it a bit more thought you could argue we do spend a significant proportion of our time educating drivers, although perhaps not quite as directly as you would like. Just having a visible police presence on the road encourages motorists to consider how they are driving, and even when we do stop someone on the side of the road and stand there ticket book in hand or wagging the finger you can bet all those passing are glad it isn't them..... If it's any help speed detection/prosecution represents a tiny minority (certainly less than 6%) of the majority of officer time. Even in my role which involves marked patrol specifically stopping vehicles I'm struggling to remember the last time I actually stuck someone on for speed alone......

[martin15s]

D.T. Part of my patter was always to say something like "i've stopped you because....." Times have changed and many of the public do not expect to be a subject of the enforcement role. Nowadays people seem to expect a friendly warning and a wave goodbye from good old Mr Plod. Call me old fashioned, but in many cases I found that 3 points and a fine had a longer lasting effect than a little chat or a speed awareness course.

[andrewsmith]

I've just got round to reading the OP properly.

I can concede where everyone is coming from on this matter, as its an interesting debate as ever with things like this.

I do side with what MBK, Martin and Red Herring have said on speed, speeding and condition/ factors.
I do personally believe that the basic training (to gain a licence) is 'basic'. The motorcycling testing is of a slightly higher standard than the car test.

The IAM/ advanced training arguement has been done to death and there was consensus that the IAM seems to depend on the club. The club I'm affiliated to has a number of sports and supersport riders in the ranks.

The speed camera arguement has all but been proven to be a money making scheme, especially in the North East and the Borders.
Northumbira and Lothian & Borders have a fetish for them and they cause more incidents (accidents approaching the unit). Whereas Durham Constabulary have no fixed units and a handful of (s)camera vans and a very good highways team which includes about 30 bike based officers and the police do pull more vehicles but give alot of warnings

[-Ralph-]

Misreading galore going in in this thread today from all of us by the look of it

"I so, so, wish that traffic policing spent 6% of it's resources on tackling speed, and the other 94% on other issues, such as education of drivers."

I then changed it to authority resources, rather than police resources.

By resources I mean money, not just the police time that some of that money pays for. When saying 'such as education', I mean that's just one example of the things that could be done with the hypothetical 94% that we are talking about.

So in other words, plough the money spent on speed camera enforcement, into more unmarked patrols, I think BP said recently Manchester doesn't have any! Or an animated TV advert similar to the recent one on CIE re-educating drivers on lane discipline, or the two second rule. Or subsidised driver training (we are getting there with speed awareness courses). Or....take your pick.

I understand what you are saying about your job and how rarely your team book someone for speeding, but the public see what all the authorities are doing as a whole, from police activity on the roads, to speed camera partnerships, to politicians allegedly covering up TRL reports, and what the layman like me sees is a country that has all kinds of road problems, but blames it all upon, and concentrates resources entirely on, speed.

[martin15s]

Training, or lack of seems to come through as a major concern. On the one hand there are those who honestly believe that passing a test means that they "can" drive, whilst on the other there are many who would welcome further training but either cannot afford it or it simply does not suit them. Finally the police become involved once things start to go wrong and we left in the enforcement or warning situation. When operating a fixed radar site, all drivers stopped would automatically be reported - before the howls commence, let me say that the minimum speed in a 30 limit would be 45mph - hence absolutely no chance of a chat! There is no way that traffic police can be involved in driver training courses, costs alone prohibit that. Many police forces have reduced their dedicated traffic unit manpower and thus a visible deterrent is minimised. The age old comment of "you should be out catching burglars instead of persecuting motorists" is quite insulting to the traffic officer. They know that thousands more innocent people are killed or injured on the roads than there are burglaries to houses. Traffic police are dedicated and highly trained and deal with far more horrors than many of you can even begin to imagine, so try not to be surprised if you are subject to enforcement - the officer may only recently literally scraped a victim off the road.

[-Ralph-]

Many police forces have reduced their dedicated traffic unit manpower and thus a visible deterrent is minimised.

Therein lies the problem IMO, it's responsible for a lot of stuff, from highway code violations because people know they won't be caught red handed, to an increase in drink driving.

If your average sales rep does 30,000 miles a year and drives at 90mph on the motorway and 75mph in NSL's habitually every day in life, he probably gets an NIP from a camera every few years and rarely has a clean license.

But if he hasn't been stopped by an actual police patrol for 15 years, or half a million miles, what does he calculate as the risk of being stopped on his 2 mile journey home from the pub after 5 pints? Or being caught doing a 1/2 mile undertake on the motorway? Or tailgating someone who is 'in his way' for a mile or two. The only thing stopping him from doing it, is himself.

[martin15s]

Quote " what does he calculate as the risk of being stopped...."

Ralph, you made a very important observation there, a lot revolves around that "risk" of detection versus self control. How many people are actually capable of exercising such control? I think it is obvious that my comments are based on personal experience, albeit several years ago. Sadly, I see little in today's driving standards to modify my views. In all honesty, IS there an effective answer?

[Seandesy1]

But if he hasn't been stopped by an actual police patrol for 15 years, or half a million miles, what does he calculate as the risk of being stopped on his 2 mile journey home from the pub after 5 pints? Or being caught doing a 1/2 mile undertake on the motorway? Or tailgating someone who is 'in his way' for a mile or two. The only thing stopping him from doing it, is himself.

To be fair, the risk is probably higher than many think. Where I work we have one traffic unit to cover an area of around 100,000 people. Whereas there are maybe 15 non-traffic patrol vehicles. In the last 6 weeks I have stopped two drink drivers who have been on a journey of less than 2 miles from pub to home of which both blew in the high 60's or low 70's.

One was the result of a no MOT marker on PNC, which incidentally I only did the check on after the driver failed to indicate at a roundabout. The second was a result of overly cautious driving.

As a mere response officer the only roads policing I can do is between all the burglaries/thefts/assaults etc that I'm sent to. As such the majority of the traffic stuff I deal with is either mobiles phones/no insurance/no MoT.

On the issue of speeding, I accpet theres a different ways of dealing. On my patch we have two decent lengths of dual carriageway that have recently been changed from 70mph to 40mph, for which I have no understanding of the reasons behind. People still get a tug for speeding day or night, just the actual speed and condtions at the time effect the outcome.

[martin15s]

Seandesy1 "As a mere response officer..."

Never mind, you have to start somewhere.....:rolleyes:

[-Ralph-]

One was the result of a no MOT marker on PNC, which incidentally I only did the check on after the driver failed to indicate at a roundabout. The second was a result of overly cautious driving.

The hypothetical sales rep we are talking about drives a 60 plate VW Passat, so long as he doesn't do anything daft on the way home he isn't getting stopped. ;)

I'm a high mileage driver and I drive a 10 plate Toyota Avensis that will show up fully legal on any check you wish to run on it. The hypothetical driver is loosely based on me, in terms of mileage at least.

I was stopped in Birmingham a few months ago, and then only because I jumped into a gap in busy city centre traffic and accidentally cut up a copper (where I'd been cut up exactly the same 5 times in as many miles) and he was ****ed off with me, so the blue lights went on. It was a Saturday afternoon with my family in the car returning home from shopping.

It was, no kidding, the first time I have been stopped in 15 years and half a million miles. The only thing stopping me from drink driving is my own common sense and the fact I couldn't live with myself if I killed somebody.

[martin15s]

Just in on Sky News " Boy, 6, Killed By Hit And Run Driver"

Too early to know what actually happened but I would not be surprised if (inappropriate) speed was a contributory factor.

Imagine driving along a 30mph urban street and you notice (I hope) a young child stationary on the pavement - would you take any action or just continue at the same speed?

[-Ralph-]

As a father of a young boy it's difficult to process what my emotion is on reading that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005540/Police-hunt-hit-run-driver-boy-6-killed.html

[Specialone]

When I spot hazards like that, I don't always adjust my speed, but I would give them a wide berth and be the dominant thing in my focus so I'm ready for any changes to the picture.

I'm more nervous of animals tbh as they ime are far more unpredictable.

[-Ralph-]

Imagine driving along a 30mph urban street and you notice (I hope) a young child stationary on the pavement - would you take any action or just continue at the same speed?

Same as Specialone, but it would involve a reduction in speed for me, gives me more time to react.

[Red Herring]

The only thing stopping me from drink driving is my own common sense and the fact I couldn't live with myself if I killed somebody.

Which sorts of brings us back to the original point. If everybody was like Ralph we wouldn't need a drink drive limit would we? We would all be able to judge how much we had to drink and never have "to much" would we....?
Unfortunately there are a few who can't make that distinction so the end result is that we have a limit that we all have to comply with, or accept the potential consequences.

The difference between drink driving and speeding is that most of us speed, and generally get away with it. Unfortunately the consequences of getting it wrong can be just as serious. Could you live with yourself then?

[The Idle Biker]

I mean slowing down when you see the sign for the junction....or the roof of the house over the hedge. That's your first tip for free.

What's the tip? with:confused roof and hedge maestro. Der? :confused:

[Red Herring]

What's the tip? with:confused roof and hedge maestro. Der? :confused:

Sorry, was that a bit deep....?

If you see a sign for a junction then it's reasonable to expect there to be a junction, and the possibility of something emerging, especially important if it's just round a bend or over a brow....

The roof of the house follows a similar principal, unless everybody round where you live commutes by helicopter and doesn't have a driveway.....:)

[DJFridge]

What's the tip? with:confused roof and hedge maestro. Der? :confused:

I swore off this thread several hours ago for my own safety (!), but as the tip was aimed at me; I took it that Red Herring was pointing out the possible hazards of a house - vehicles and/or people/animals//balls/balls followed by small people/small people followed by big people etc emerging from driveways and gates with no warning. I'm sure I'll be shot down in flames if I'm wrong!

Personally, I think it must be lovely to ride on roads where you have that much warning of potential hazards - having learned to drive in London and ride on the fairly heavily populated south coast, the idea that there are stretches of road where you can see the potential hazards all that way ahead, as opposed to riding between them continuously for mile after mile, is a bit alien.

Incidentally, on the drink driving thing (and how did andreis' thread on speeding end up with drink driving, but anyway), I remember seeing an Icelander talking to Jeremy Clarkson (on his round the world thingy, not Top Gear) and telling him that almost nobody ever drink/drives in Iceland because there is too much chance that you would know the person you hit. With a population that tight-knit, the potential consequences of screwing up are much more real and much more personal. Maybe people here still do it because they don't feel part of a community anymore.

[Red Herring]

Hi DJFridge. The tip wasn't aimed specifically at you, if I'm going to get personal I say so, as in this post. The tip was used to illustrate that advanced training isn't about spending hours riding around learning how to ride a bike, it's about coaching the mind to recognize the information that is continually around us and to use it to anticipate what could happen and plan how to deal with it, before we actually have to. The number of times I've dealt with crashes where the rider/driver has come round a bend to find a vehicle sideways across the road in front of them because the driver is turning in or out of a driveway is unbelievable. They always try and blame the other driver saying they pulled out in front of them, but 9 times out of 10 the driver started pulling out before they came into view. You have to bear in mind that when a lot of rural properties were built, and the majority of our roads came into existence, when most traffic was on four legs and not doing 60mph. Now to get back on topic the government have two choices, they could put up a warning sign before every house warning the oncoming driver /rider of a driveway ahead, or they can just put a speed limit up along the road..... Personally I prefer option one, only the sign doesn't need to be metal, triangular, and have a red border. It can just as easily be twenty feet high, made of red brick and have a slate roof! We just need to train our motorists to recognize it as a warning sign.

At the risk of being even more personal I would suggest your second paragraph tends to suggest you haven't understood that. Riding in heavily populated areas is exactly the kind of environment where advanced skills give the most benefit.

[Bedhead]

Many countries (certainly here in Spain) insist that newly qualified drivers and riders display a different coloured "L" plate (green here) for 12 months, and impose a maximum speed limit of 80kph (50mph) during that period. This alone will not make drivers safer but does tend to encourage an awareness of the use of speed.

They have this in NI, in practice it means you have a percentage of totally law abiding new drivers getting queues of drivers behind trying to overtake, does absolutely nothing for the blood pressure.

I see a terrified looking R plate driver on the motorway every day, usually being overtaken by an HGV, 45 on the motorway is probably not the nicest place to be and in practice, the police tend to give R plates on the motorway a bye ball.

Of course you still get the newly passed Saxo brigade who try to merge themselves with the scenery at every opportunity.

[DJFridge]

Hi DJFridge. The tip wasn't aimed specifically at you, if I'm going to get personal I say so, as in this post. The tip was used to illustrate that advanced training isn't about spending hours riding around learning how to ride a bike, it's about coaching the mind to recognize the information that is continually around us and to use it to anticipate what could happen and plan how to deal with it, before we actually have to. The number of times I've dealt with crashes where the rider/driver has come round a bend to find a vehicle sideways across the road in front of them because the driver is turning in or out of a driveway is unbelievable. They always try and blame the other driver saying they pulled out in front of them, but 9 times out of 10 the driver started pulling out before they came into view. You have to bear in mind that when a lot of rural properties were built, and the majority of our roads came into existence, when most traffic was on four legs and not doing 60mph. Now to get back on topic the government have two choices, they could put up a warning sign before every house warning the oncoming driver /rider of a driveway ahead, or they can just put a speed limit up along the road..... Personally I prefer option one, only the sign doesn't need to be metal, triangular, and have a red border. It can just as easily be twenty feet high, made of red brick and have a slate roof! We just need to train our motorists to recognize it as a warning sign.

At the risk of being even more personal I would suggest your second paragraph tends to suggest you haven't understood that. Riding in heavily populated areas is exactly the kind of environment where advanced skills give the most benefit.

None taken Red! I must have reworded that second paragraph 4 times before I posted (which is why your reply to Idle had been posted by the time I hit the button with mine) and I obviously still didn't get it right. I blame the lateness of the hour.

I would agree absolutely with the benefits of advanced skills for urban riding or driving. That was sort of my (clumsily made) point. I was just trying to contrast the type of road where a house can actually stand out as a potential hazard with the type of road where those hazards are more or less continuous. And as I have said previously, I am currently looking at extra training because, as I also said earlier, I don't think you ever stop learning. Or, to put it another way, I don't think anyone should allow themselves to believe that they have nothing left to learn.

[-Ralph-]

How we got from speeding to drink driving is fairly simple. The OP asks what we think about speed and speed enforcement. I think we should spend less money on speed enforcement, and more on enforcement of other (IMO) more dangerous offences, driver education, etc, the rest is just my justification for why I think like this.

RH's post shows how damn important education is. He says with more people like me we wouldnt need a limit, but we would still need the education. All of our grandfathers probably though nothing of driving a car when drunk. They weren't stupid or uncaring, they just hadnt had the same education, TV adverts, news articles, published research, etc

To answer RH's question about guilt, I think you'd feel pretty terrible if you caused any accident where someone died, but the extent of that anguish would depend on whether you'd made a mistake, or whether you had been stupid. Therefore I'd feel a lot worse if I hit a kid at 50 mph in a 30, than if I just hadn't spotted them emerging into the road. At 90mph on an reasonably empty motorway in good weather I wouldn't feel any worse. Back to "appropriate" speed and common sense, you know fine well when you are taking a risk, just some drivers or riders choose to deny it to themselves, or convince themselves they are good enough to take evasive action. Much to the great frustration of most other drivers in any big city, I dont speed in built up areas. The amount of road rage I cause by driving along Birminghams main routes at the posted 30 or 40 mph limits is unbelievable, but I don't care, they can hit my back bumper or they can bl00dy wait, in fact often they get so close that I actually slow down to give myself more time to react to anything in front of me so I don't have to brake hard and risk them running into me!

[tactcom7]

I had a speed awareness course a week last saturday, and although i found the tone of the instructor (?) quite condescending at times, some of the stuff she showed the class did make me (and i'm sure, others) seriously think about speeding and the consequences.

[-Ralph-]

I had a speed awareness course a week last saturday, and although i found the tone of the instructor (?) quite condescending at times, some of the stuff she showed the class did make me (and i'm sure, others) seriously think about speeding and the consequences.

Please do elaborate dear sir!

[Red Herring]

....some of the stuff she showed the class

You have got to be kidding........;)

[tactcom7]

Please do elaborate dear sir!

Well for instance she showed a video of a 7 year old being hit by a car (actual footage) and 2 videos that had been made by the parents of someone killed by excessive (inappropriate) speed.

RH, tell me about it lol

[DJFridge]

All of our grandfathers probably though nothing of driving a car when drunk. They weren't stupid or uncaring, they just hadnt had the same education, TV adverts, news articles, published research, etc

They (as a generation, not accusing your grandparents, Ralph, or indeed mine) also managed to kill vastly more of themselves and pedestrians than today, despite there being half the number of vehicles on the road. The problem is that legislators happily point to the cause of the reduction being the speed limits, which are cheap and can be applied on a relatively arbitrary basis, rather than better training, which is expensive and has to actually be properly thought out (otherwise you end up with Mod 1. Oh, we did. For another thread methinks).


Much to the great frustration of most other drivers in any big city, I dont speed in built up areas. The amount of road rage I cause by driving along Birminghams main routes at the posted 30 or 40 mph limits is unbelievable, but I don't care, they can hit my back bumper or they can bl00dy wait, in fact often they get so close that I actually slow down to give myself more time to react to anything in front of me so I don't have to brake hard and risk them running into me!

With you on that one, Ralph, particularly the allowing braking space for the numptie behind as well as myself. I know, legally, if they run into the back of me it will be their fault but, quite honestly, I can do without the hassle!

[-Ralph-]

Forget wars, genocide, famine and cancer. The motor vehicle is the biggest killer on the planet, bar none.

Just as a gun can backfire and kill its owner accidents do happen, but generally the dangerous thing about the gun is the person holding it.

[martin15s]

Forget wars, genocide, famine and cancer. The motor vehicle is the biggest killer on the planet, bar none.

Just as a gun can backfire and kill its owner accidents do happen, but generally the dangerous thing about the gun is the person holding it.

Amen to that.

[Red Herring]

Actually smoking kills over 30 times as many people in the UK each year than the motor vehicle, so if you are in the habit of smoking whilst driving.... be warned!

[timwilky]

I have a real issue with speeding. The lack of uniformity.

A hill near me was for no good reason (beyond an unsafely loaded flat bed transit overturned killing the driver) reduced from NSL to 30. It had safely been NSL for at least 45 years that I had travelled on it from being a child. the real danger was ice first thing of a winter morning not traffic doing 60 in normal conditions.

Well a few years ago I was travelling down it. Knowing it was 30, and as I went round the bend there is mr scamera van. He got me 35. First time in 35 years of a clean licence 3 points sp30. No offer of a course. others tell me the cops would not have done me until 40mph etc.

My lesson learned that day. Speed detection is for revenue.

Now whenever I see him I make a nuisance of myself by parking behind him to find the rattle in my boot etc.

Strange the scameras round here hide at the bottom of hills

[DJFridge]

Forget wars, genocide, famine and cancer. The motor vehicle is the biggest killer on the planet, bar none.

Just as a gun can backfire and kill its owner accidents do happen, but generally the dangerous thing about the gun is the person holding it.

Um, no, don't forget wars, genocide or famine. Something over 30 million people have died in motor vehicle related accidents since the first recorded death in 1899. Sounds scary? Yes it does. Biggest killer on the planet bar none? No, Ralph, not even close.

Stalin alone was responsible for the deaths of 20 million, following up on the 9 million who'd already died in the Revolution. The First World War was responsible for the deaths of some 15 million people. Some estimates have the death toll in China under Chairman Mao as high as 40 million (they also had a couple of civil wars in the early 20th century which had already claimed probably 7 million). Do you see where I'm going with this? Have I mentioned Cambodia, Korea or the Congo yet? Or the Second World War?

The motor vehicle, in it's various forms, is undoubtedly a lethal object in the wrong hands, or sometimes the right hands but the wrong circumstances. It has also been hugely beneficial in our society and, compared with what misplaced political or religious ideology can produce, it's death toll is fairly tame.

[Red Herring]

I think it would be fair to say that the motor vehicle is responsible in this day and age for the most "accidental" deaths. The use of the word "accidental" does bother me a bit because most are due to incompetence but society seems to accept that it will always be somebody's else's fault....

[DJFridge]

I think it would be fair to say that the motor vehicle is responsible in this day and age for the most "accidental" deaths. The use of the word "accidental" does bother me a bit because most are due to incompetence but society seems to accept that it will always be somebody's else's fault....

That would probably be fair. You can't really call the Killing Fields in Cambodia accidental after all. Or smoking for that matter, as you pointed out earlier.

[-Ralph-]

Um, no, don't forget wars, genocide or famine. Something over 30 million people have died in motor vehicle related accidents since the first recorded death in 1899. Sounds scary? Yes it does. Biggest killer on the planet bar none? No, Ralph, not even close.

Dunno how someone can possibly come up with a figure of 30 mil, when the most dangerous countries in the world to drive a car don't keep statistics on it, but hey.

According to the link I posted earlier 40,000 were killed in the UK in 10 years from 92 to 02. Only 0.1%, but that's 10 of the safest years, in the history of one of the safest countries in the world. If the AA are correct in their stats, France is twice as dangerous, Spain 3 times, and Portugal 4 times.

That quote was one I read somewhere some time ago, I had other things on my mind at 3:25am this morning, like getting some sleep, so I wasn't about to go Google statistics like 30 million to check if it was correct.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what the statistics are, that's just semantics, whoever wrote that may have researched his stats, he may have done some guesswork on the unrecorded deaths, or he may have used a large dollop of poetic license, but he achieved his objective. I remembered the quote and it made me think about it, and whatever opinion you have formed, bullsh!t or not, it made you think about it too.

[martin15s]

There's an old saying "there lies, damned lies and then there are statistics".

Statistics can be manipulated to prove or deny almost anything. As for trying to compare road deaths with war, there can be no comparison. It should be pretty obvious to anybody that the death toll from so called road "accidents" is unnecessarily high. Statistics aside, my own personal experience from 30 years policing is that speed is a contributory factor (often a major factor) and although not always excessive (over the prevailing limit) the inappropriate use of speed will often have unfortunate or even disastrous consequences.

[Bibio]

its not speed that kills its the inability of people not being able to control a vehicle at speed. some people are more than capable at riding/driving at high speeds as their thought, concentration, awareness and control of the vehicle is well honed, whereas other people are just not as sharp or aware of anything else going on around them as they are concentrating to much on trying to control the vehicle.

what gives a traffic cop the right to travel at high speeds (apart from duty and blues n twos)?

[Red Herring]

what gives a traffic cop the right to travel at high speeds (apart from duty and blues n twos)?

Can you expand on "the right". Do you want to know under what legislation they can do it, or why they do it, or why it is safer for them to do it than your average punter?

[Red Herring]

There's an old saying "there lies, damned lies and then there are statistics".


Talking of statistics, and comparing casualties from war against road death, I'm sure I read a comment somewhere that our casualty figures from the various engagements we are currently involved in is on a par with the Forces attrition rate from peace time "accidents", the majority of which were on the road. It's a fact of life that young men are the highest risk group and if they weren't actively engaged fighting for queen and country they would be busy doing lots of other dodgy pastimes instead.

[Bibio]

you know exactly what i was meaning when i said 'right' as i added in brackets 'duty' etc.

[yorkie_chris]

Can you expand on "the right". Do you want to know under what legislation they can do it, or why they do it, or why it is safer for them to do it than your average punter?

For me it is because you'd hope they have their mind on the job in hand.

I know that a great deal of the time it is just as safe for me to be doing lots more than the speed limit... because I am watching what I'm doing and not *rsing around with a spacknav, or rolling a fag while drinking a brew.

In an ideal world there would be no speed limits, or traffic laws, just one law against being a tw*t! Driving without due care would cover most of it, but of course "speeding" is "dangerous" :smt082

[yorkie_chris]

The biggest problem is that, when you learn drive or ride, you are taught how to pass the test, plain and simple. Learning how to actually ride / drive on your own only comes after.
Don't confuse anything in the DSAs vocabulary with skills that will save your life.

I don't think any test could effectively test this. Anyone can do anything to pass a test, and completely change their habits afterwards, or slowly drift away from a standard because they've been doing something for years.

Best thing I could think of is some maybe 3 yearly advanced lesson/observation. Not a test just a few hours, government sponsored so it would be cheap. Cut down on crashes by informing without too much impact on liberty.

Many countries (certainly here in Spain) insist that newly qualified drivers and riders display a different coloured "L" plate (green here) for 12 months, and impose a maximum speed limit of 80kph (50mph) during that period. This alone will not make drivers safer but does tend to encourage an awareness of the use of speed.

I don't like these ideas. I've found that every time I see someone with a green P/L plate here they get used as a target, it simply announces to the world that they have no confidence. The same to an extent seems to apply when wearing a hi-vis on the bike!

I've actually been in a car with a f*ckwit driving down the motorway at 50mph. Artics rumbling past your head is not, IMO, a good recipe for confident safe driving skill development. It's bloody scary. I'm not sure how that encourages an awareness of the use of speed.

There have been some very interesting, responsible and informed comments on this thread from a small minority, but what is of more importance is the complete lack of response from the usual knee down and wheelie brigade. Apathy rules???

Well if you're having your knee down or hoiking the front wheel somewhere below the speed limit where you can safely stop in the distance seen to be clear there doesn't seem to be much of a conflict of ideas?

You'd probably consider me to be one of the hooligan brigade from my posts, but fact is I agree with the article and almost everything you and Herring have said in this thread.

One thought I have, is when I'm going down the road, I'm looking at my speedo and processing "am I speeding, am I likely to get pulled for this speed, is it a fine and points or a ban". I don't think needing to have this thought process is good.

[-Ralph-]

I don't like these ideas. I've found that every time I see someone with a green P/L plate here they get used as a target, it simply announces to the world that they have no confidence. The same to an extent seems to apply when wearing a hi-vis on the bike!

That's only because to put one on your car here, that has to be to some extent true. If every new driver had one I don't think it would be seen that way.

I occasionally wear hi-viz, like if I'm going out in the dark in sh!tty weather conditions. Suppose somebody teetering along on a brand new 125 in good visibility with a high vis might be seen that way.

[Bibio]

you don't need to be a 'knee down wheelie brigade' to be a complete plonker i have seen enough 'i'm out for my sunday stroll' types be complete tozzers. wont overtake when safe to do so, wont twist the throttle when they do overtake narrowly missing on coming vehicles, riding at 40mph in 60's on a clear sunny day holding everyone up as they think they are mr/mrs safe rider when in fact they are the complete opposite as they are so wrapped up in their self importance that nothing else matters apart from them and their day out.

[yorkie_chris]

That's only because to put one on your car here, that has to be to some extent true. If every new driver had one I don't think it would be seen that way.

I occasionally wear hi-viz, like if I'm going out in the dark in sh!tty weather conditions. Suppose somebody teetering along on a brand new 125 in good visibility with a high vis might be seen that way.

Noticed it myself in good weather on the SV. More idiots cutting you up, generally being silly.

Not sure whether kn*bs being able to spot you easily is good, or whether the shonky looking bike and black kit deters them from trying any funny business.

[-Ralph-]

shonky looking bike and black kit deters them from trying any funny business.

Assuming they've seen your shonky bike and black kit in the first place ;-)

[yorkie_chris]

Well yeah, but maybe it is better not to be seen and rely on your own anticipation than be seen and get used for target practice.
I can only offer my own findings on it, the logic doesn't seem to hold water to me, but that's what I've noticed.

[Red Herring]

you know exactly what i was meaning when i said 'right' as i added in brackets 'duty' etc.

Are you suggesting that traffic cops speed when they are not entitled to use their legal exemptions?:eek:

[Red Herring]

One thought I have, is when I'm going down the road, I'm looking at my speedo and processing "am I speeding, am I likely to get pulled for this speed, is it a fine and points or a ban". I don't think needing to have this thought process is good.

It didn't look to me as if you were worrying about anything when I was behind you......;)

[-Ralph-]

Are you suggesting that traffic cops speed when they are not entitled to use their legal exemptions?:eek:

NEVER! :shock:

Only when they are "testing their vehicles" ;)

[-Ralph-]

One thought I have, is when I'm going down the road, I'm looking at my speedo and processing "am I speeding, am I likely to get pulled for this speed, is it a fine and points or a ban". I don't think needing to have this thought process is good.

I'm the same on the bike, but don't have to think about it, I have the ACPO guideline drilled into my head and use them as my own unofficial speed limits.

New thread coming up BTW, that's reminded me of something.

[Bibio]

Are you suggesting that traffic cops speed when they are not entitled to use their legal exemptions?:eek:

you like to twist words don't you or are you just trying to get a rise out of people :rolleyes:

i'm referring to what skills does a police officer have that entitles them to drive/ride over the legal speed limits. i know about their legal entitlement when on the job blagh blagh etc.etc so i'm not asking about that part of it.

so i guess i'm asking what skills do police officers have over members of the public that entitle them to drive/ride above speed limits? as they are just people like everyone else.

[-Ralph-]

http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?p=2561660

If the coppers on this thread wouldn't mind contributing? ta

[-Ralph-]

so i guess i'm asking what skills do police officers have over members of the public that entitle them to drive/ride above speed limits? as they are just people like everyone else.

I guess if a civilian has paid to go through that level of training, none.

[Bluefish]

Well from one who has 3 shiny new points for speeding, 86 in a 60, i have only had my knee down 3 times, on a track, and have never done a wheelie, i know i suck :rolleyes:

[Red Herring]

you like to twist words don't you or are you just trying to get a rise out of people :rolleyes:

i'm referring to what skills does a police officer have that entitles them to drive/ride over the legal speed limits. i know about their legal entitlement when on the job blagh blagh etc.etc so i'm not asking about that part of it.

so i guess i'm asking what skills do police officers have over members of the public that entitle them to drive/ride above speed limits? as they are just people like everyone else.

Me twist words, you're reading to much into my name mate.....

I'll try not to be pedantic about your wording and answer your question. It's not a police officers skills that entitles them to speed, it's their role that does that, and when they are not engaged in their role, ie: off duty they are not entitled to speed, and yes, they do get done occasionally. (and sometimes they get done on duty as well, I have to fill in 2 or 3 NIP's a month on average)

From a safety point of view a traffic officer (or any other suitably trained individual) does not suddenly lose their skills when they go off duty so even when they are riding their own bikes, or driving their own cars, they are still generally a bit more switched on than your average joe public, and some of them exploit this advantage to make a bit more progress. I'm not saying it's right, I just saying they may know what they are doing.

[Bibio]

see that wasn't sore now was it :smt046

so the only skill they have is the law to which they serve and only whilst serving the law.

yes i know that traffic cops and such like do a lot of training etc.etc. and i'm really not trying to have a dig. but it just seems strange that an average person serving as a police officer is entitled to break the law in order to enforce it. while someone who has just as much skill is made a criminal.

if speeding was that dangerous those pedantic I.O.M residents/politicians would be up in arms and set speed limits on their island. but like every other sane person they know that most people will drive/ride within their capability.

[Seandesy1]

you like to twist words don't you or are you just trying to get a rise out of people :rolleyes:

i'm referring to what skills does a police officer have that entitles them to drive/ride over the legal speed limits. i know about their legal entitlement when on the job blagh blagh etc.etc so i'm not asking about that part of it.

so i guess i'm asking what skills do police officers have over members of the public that entitle them to drive/ride above speed limits? as they are just people like everyone else.

Your average frontline response officer who responds to everyday calls will have to go on a response driving course. This varies amongst forces but here it's a 3 week (5 days a week) course which teaches the Roadcraft system of car control with only the final week being blue light training. The course focuses more on observation, anticipation and positioning.

A further one week is added on for initial pursuit training (i.e starting a pursuit and carrying on until traffic/advanced drivers can take over.)

Advanced drivers must undergo the initial response course before going back to do the advanced course (usually 2-3 years later). The advanced course is 4 weeks. I have no idea what it actually involves bar higher speed training, commentary training, risk assesment etc.

[Red Herring]

...... but it just seems strange that an average person serving as a police officer is entitled to break the law in order to enforce it. while someone who has just as much skill is made a criminal.

Nows to trying to get a rise.....or do you really not get it?

Firstly they are not breaking the law in order to enforce it, the law specifically says that a police officer is not required to heed a speed limit if it would frustrate the purpose of their duty....

Secondly, the majority of police forces will not allow an officer to use their exemption unless they have been trained to a fairly high level, as has been said by several others, so a police officer is not "an average person" when it comes to their driving skills (I'm generalizing a bit here folks, I know different officers have different driving levels).

And finally our cars are fitted with black boxes and video recorders, if we get it wrong, or take the mickey, we stand to lose our job. UDD, or Urgent Duty Driving, is one of the most closely monitored areas of police activity these days, perhaps you like to see it done away with altogether?

[Bibio]

no i do get it and believe me i think you guys do a wonderful job along with ambulance drivers and the fire brigade. i just don't see what qualifies an average person the entitlement to drive above the speed limits in the line of duty where us mortals get punished.

if what the government and official bodies say is true then no matter who is doing the speeding according to them its dangerous. so is speeding only dangerous when not being carried out in the line of duty by an official body or is it just a big old farce to generate revenue.

[yorkie_chris]

It didn't look to me as if you were worrying about anything when I was behind you......;)

Why would I be worried when making safe and legal progress? 8-[

[skidmarx]

Hey hang on a minute RH, I have no problem with any of the factual statements that you've made in this thread, and hey, thank god you guys are there! But.... If you're playing the 'subjective' card, why oh why (the f*^€) do you think it's ok to 'question' a female delivering a speeding course? I've no problem with your interpretation/duty to police, but you're not qualified, imo, to extrapolate that into behaviour, please explain! X

[Red Herring]

Hey hang on a minute RH, I have no problem with any of the factual statements that you've made in this thread, and hey, thank god you guys are there! But.... If you're playing the 'subjective' card, why oh why (the f*^€) do you think it's ok to 'question' a female delivering a speeding course? I've no problem with your interpretation/duty to police, but you're not qualified, imo, to extrapolate that into behaviour, please explain! X

Have I got to be serious ALL the time.....:(

[Red Herring]

...... i just don't see what qualifies an average person the entitlement to drive above the speed limits in the line of duty where us mortals get punished.


That's OK mate because everybody else does....

[Dicky Ticker]

All men are equal-----in law---apart from police officers.
When it comes down to it in court the police are favoured over an average person,FACT.

Instances where the corroborative evidence has been proven to be unreliable still seem to be resulting in a conviction just on the evidence of a single police officer.
At least the benefit of Scottish law is that normally it has to be the testimony of two officers

[Dicky Ticker]

The above post by me was not to berate anybody but purely to emphasize that due to the degree/levels of training given to the police,it gives them a better perception of the dangers etc. but they only charge you---it is the courts that convict you and this is where the equality seems to be in favour of the police