Points on the licence...

[km991148]

phew whole can of worms here - I am off to do some work now will probably return later to see the thread at 12+pages

 

[John the Monkey]

Can this be moved to P&L?

Depends how nasty it gets Lee

 

[hulver]

You already get 6 points on your license for excessive speeding, you just have to go to court first. All this "new" law will do is remove the courts from the equation. It's a cost cutting measure, not a safety one.

See here for details.

 

[Tynan]

The vast majority of speeding points are for people that aren't driving dangerously at all

Speed is a factor in a minority of fault accidents, it's usually negligent driving

Only that's a bit harder to catch and later prove

 

[Eat MY Dust]

The vast majority of speeding points are for people that aren't driving dangerously at all

Speed is a factor in a minority of fault accidents, it's usually negligent driving

Only that's a bit harder to catch and later prove

I think the issue isn't really about dangerous driving. It's about drivers obeying (or disobeying) the law.

 

[swee'pea99]

I'm not sure what constitutes being 'the issue', but if it's not making the roads safer then what's the point? Obedience, per se, has no value - unless you're a fascist and simply like people doing what they're told ('Because I say so!')

 

[Eat MY Dust]

Well there's a whole load of laws that don't actually make things any safer. Not cycling on the pavement. Cyclists stopping at reds. Not cycling down one way streets the wrong way. I obey these laws because they are there. Does that make me a fascist?

Can we start only obeying laws that we see fit for obedience, and disregard the rest?

 

[John the Monkey]

Isn't not bothering to obey the law as it relates to your chosen vehicle somewhat negligent in and of itself?

What of braking distance, thinking time, impact velocity...?

 

[thomas]

I'm not against people who are doing excessive speed getting more serious sanctions but I am against points on slight infractions (32 in a 30, etc).

Someone else said about speeding at night on a motorway, I think more accidents happen at night so maybe it's not any safer.

I do think that there is a time and a place for a little bit of speeding. All in moderation though. Motorway speeding is probably safer than urban speeding.

 

[John the Monkey]

Some interesting stuff on the physics of it all here;

http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm

(Particularly the non linear relationship between braking distances and speed, and impact force and speed - worth bearing in mind if you're "only" 5 mph over the limit).

 

[PBancroft]

The thing is, whilst everyone does do it to some extent, it doesn't mean that they should - and like most people here I mean excessive speeds. I think getting caught for doing 45 in a 40 should probably just be a fine thats otherwise forgotten about.

But to drive dangerously fast? I mean to not just creep over the speed limit, to to really smash it... that should be a licence loss in my opinion. It is a limit after all, and not a target.

 

[hackbike 6]

I think they should have more motorcycle cops in Engerland like they have here issued with guns.Gets respect over here.

 

[sheddy]

I'm not against people who are doing excessive speed getting more serious sanctions but I am against points on slight infractions (32 in a 30, etc).

Normally get offered a 1 day speed awareness course for this (1st offence only I guess)

 

[beancounter]

The 70 mph motorway speed limit was first introduced as a temporary measure in 1965 and made permanent in 1967. This was not a major issue at the time as most family cars could barely do 70 mph anyway.

40 years on cars have changed somewhat but the limit hasn't. Someone asked why do people speed, I would say (on a motorway at least) it's because they feel their cars will easily and safely cruise at speeds well in excess of 70 mph, and can stop very quickly from high speed with modern anti-lock braking systems.

The other thing that's changed is the volume of traffic on the roads and it's this factor, rather than "excessive" speed in itself, which is the major safety issue.

Anyway, I suppose what I'm getting at is that potentially losing your licence for two episodes of 90 mph on a motorway seems absurd, to me at least.

bc

 

[gavintc]

The 70 mph motorway speed limit was first introduced as a temporary measure in 1965 and made permanent in 1967. This was not a major issue at the time as most family cars could barely do 70 mph anyway.

40 years on cars have changed somewhat but the limit hasn't. Someone asked why do people speed, I would say (on a motorway at least) it's because they feel their cars will easily and safely cruise at speeds well in excess of 70 mph, and can stop very quickly from high speed with modern anti-lock braking systems.

The other thing that's changed is the volume of traffic on the roads and it's this factor, rather than "excessive" speed in itself, which is the major safety issue.

Anyway, I suppose what I'm getting at is that potentially losing your licence for two episodes of 90 mph on a motorway seems absurd, to me at least.

bc

Your post appears a rambling. You accept the traffic levels have increased and that this is the factor that the speed limits on motorways are a major safety feature but you seem unable to make the logic jump to why we need to impose this major safety feature with speed limits.