Points on the licence...

[Piemaster]

The black box recording idea is being used by some insurers in the USA. Those who have them get lower premiums (young drivers, convicted drink drivers, etc.)

The idea of having GPS speed limiters I find a little troubling as I think it would take something else away from the drivers decision making. I could easily imagine cars being driven like dodgems - foot planted to the floor all the time as they cannot now break any speed limits, one less thing to think about. At least at the moment how hard a driver pushes the accelerator and speeds is down to them. They are making a decision.

 

[John the Monkey]

That's not necessarily true ...

I'd say that on a strict reading of probability, it is - you have less time to think, less time to react, and your brakes and manoevering are less effective.

The difference may be small, percentage wise, if you are a skillful driver able to read the road ahead, but I think the statement that an increase in speed makes a collision more likely (given all other things are equal) is probably true as stated.

 

[BentMikey]

I'd say that on a strict reading of probability, it is - you have less time to think, less time to react, and your brakes and manoevering are less effective.

The difference may be small, percentage wise, if you are a skillful driver able to read the road ahead, but I think the statement that an increase in speed makes a collision more likely (given all other things are equal) is probably true as stated.

Agreed, all else being the same.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Note my use of the word "necessarily".

 

[John the Monkey]

Note my use of the word "necessarily".

Point taken RT.

 

[BentMikey]

Note my use of the word "necessarily".

Except that that is not the most useful or fair way of putting what I think you meant. On average, more speed will equal more collisions. This is part of the reason why the motorway speed limit has been kept to 70.

 

[In trouble]

All of the above is all well and good. Tomorrow night, my county will put out only 3 traffic cars, however, non of the cops on those cars have been trained in the use of the in-car speed detection equipment, so it can't be used.
Regulations are nice, if there is a chance of enforcing of those regulations.

 

[PBancroft]

Intelligent counter-arguments in the press this week-

Two convictions and a driver could lose his license, job, house.

There are a lot of places where the speed limit changes down (NSS). If the second sign is hidden by leaves then someone may get flashed at 20 over the limit.

On a deserted motorway, someone driving at 90 might get 6 points.

None of them worth the paper they're written on.

Actually, I would suggest that one of them is. There are times when signs are obscured, hidden or flat out missing. However, I seem to recall that this is already an appropriate defense. If you're flashed at doing 50 in a 30, and you weren't aware it was a 30 because there isn't adequate signage this can be used to defend yourself against the charge.

 

[PBancroft]

Most 30mph speed limits are through urban areas where there is street lightning. Where there is street lightning you are to assume that the limit is 30mph unless told oterwise, this is in the highway code.

Yeah, it is. I did think it wasn't the best example in the World as I wrote it.

That said, its not as simple as that. As you rightly say, the 30mph limit is applicable unless otherwise specified. So a road could be a 50 limit up until the 50 signs disappear? No, because it isn't clear where the 30 limit starts. The road user still needs to be advised that they are entering a 30 limit. There usually aren't repeater signs in such a situation, but there does need to be that first indication.

I was going to dig out the exact law for this, but I reckon you can Google it yourself if you're interested. There is a bit here on the Manchester City Council website though.

So if the 30 sign is obscured, not present or otherwise not visible the roaduser isn't going to know that the speed limit has changed. Certainly after a short period an astute driver will realise that the signs are no longer present and slow down appropriately, but by that time they could equally have been caught for speeding.

However, nitpicking aside, the point stands whether it is 60/40, 50/30 or whatever. And I'll use this opportunity to reiterate my earlier position, that I think dangerous road users should have to retake their tests.

 

[Will1985]

If the technology was available to track everybodys car speeds and automatically punish them for going over the limit speeding would stop overnight

It already exists - Norwich Union's PAYG insurance uses GPS to record all sorts of things which it then sends to the insurer. It wouldn't be hard to interpret the data to determine if the driver was doing 40 in a 30 or whatever.

I think this points system should make people think more, particularly the new drivers on their 6pt probationary limit. In fact, new drivers should have to display green P plates by law and perhaps have their vehicles limited (I realise this would cost and open up all sorts of issues where the vehicle is shared).

Also, motorways are the lowest priority - surely rural and especially urban areas with designated speed limits need tighter enforcement first?

 

[PBancroft]

There is always a sign that indicates a change of speed, these by law have to be on both sides of the road. I'd thought these would have been very hard to miss and the onus is on the driver. If you feel that there isn't a change of spped sign then you can appeal against a NIP.

Yes, there should always be a sign to indicate the change of speed. My point was sometimes these are not always visible, be it because they have been obscured by overgrowth, vandalised, knocked by a lorry or whatever. I am well aware you can appeal against an NIP. I think I said as much.

So if the 30 sign is obscured, not present or otherwise not visible the roaduser isn't going to know that the speed limit has changed. Certainly after a short period an astute driver will realise that the signs are no longer present and slow down appropriately, but by that time they could equally have been caught for speeding. You are contradicting yourself here with the first sentence of this paragraph, and the first paragraph.

In the first paragraph you are implying that there has to be a first indication, and now you saying that the sign maybe obscured, not present or not visible.

Correct. However it is not a contradiction in my argument, only between what should be, and what is. I am outright saying (not implying) that there should be a sign notifying a change in the speed limit. I am also well aware of the fact that sometimes signs get covered up or damaged. I say that this is an example of how a driver might not be aware of a change of speed, but also that an astute driver will notice the lack of signs and adjust their speed accordingly.

I'm not entirely sure what we're arguing about here. We seem to be singing from the same hymnbook (just maybe different faiths).

Some do, if they fall under the new driver act. In addition to those who are ordered by the court to take an extended retest (usually those coming off a DD ban)

However many (most?) do not. Driving without due care and attention currently involves a fine of up to £2500, 3-9 points on the licence, and a discretionary disqualification.

3-9 points does not involve a ban for a lot of people.

My personal feeling has always been that driving is a privilege and not a right. I have said several times on this board that I would personally like to see the points system abolished entirely and that conviction of any serious driving offense involve at the very least the driver having to retake their test.

I have also suggested that there should be some kind of scheme for other road users who do not follow the rules of the road. For example, cyclists who ride on pavements, do not use lights, or RLJ should sit mandatory road safety classes at their expense in lieu of fines.

However, in replying to an earlier post, I acknowledge that there are occasions when a driver might not be made appropriately aware of requirement, and so such a strict approach would be unfair. The case of a driver who is not aware of a change in the speed because there is not a sign present when there should be one. Similarly a cyclist might be "caught" cycling on a pavement when previously it had been a dual use path, but the end was not clearly marked.

 

[dondare]

Most 30mph speed limits are through urban areas where there is street lightning. Where there is street lightning you are to assume that the limit is 30mph unless told oterwise, this is in the highway code.

Absolutely correct. Unfortunately motorists forget the HC as soon as they lose the L plates.
On my commute there is street lighting the whole way (though not always very bright), footpaths, houses, shops and other businesses, churches, pubs, schools, tube stations and a cinema. Nothing could be more urban but because there are no "30" signs the motorists assume that it must be 40. Or 50, or 70. Speed cameras on this road would see 'em all banned by the end of the week.

 

[PBancroft]

Very few times, in the scheme of things.

And that's one of the reasons we have the appeals process.

So really it's not an excuse.

Oh God its absolutely not.

 

[Eat MY Dust]

I was taught that if you're not sure if it's a 30 or a 50 limit, that you should drive at 30 until you were 100% sure. Not drive at 50 and then if you get a ticket use the excuse that there wasn't enough signage!