"Prosecute easily for careless driving"? I think not. The problem is that carelessness is largely subjective, and there is much scope for argument about what exactly the defendant did and whether it constitutes carelessness. That requires detailed study of evidence and the exercise of judgement, which is expensive and time consuming (we are talking about processing hundreds of thousands of cases p.a., obviously). In contrast, exceeding an arbitrary speed limit, crossing white lines, or crossing on a red light are highly specific offences, with very simple evidence and little scope for argument. There is no need to prove any harm or risk of harm. Thus, they are cheap to operate, even by the millions.
Matt - you say your mate got done on "totting up" by passing several cameras in a contra-flow above the limit. That is one offence caught on several cameras ( as long as he didn't slow down for one and get caught on the next. This can be argued in court successfully - someone I used to work with made exactly that defence and only got done for one offence, not three. But, back at my last post... My point was not about if he should have got a ban for speeding, it was about the fact that knowing he had been banned he then drove illegally - that is just plain stupid - and that he was not insured. Anyone who supports his actions has obviously never been involved in a accident with an uninsured driver...
It seems to me that the speed limits are a very crude method of dealing with the problem. I ride a 750 monster...hardly the quickest thing on the roads but specifically chosen because its performance is adequate for the job in hand without being excessive, and is therefore less likely to tempt me into dangerous practices. My car is an equally restrained Astra diesel estate. Nevertheless I would say that on virtually every journey that I make, I exceed a speed limit at some point. Not by much, but enough to get me a conviction under the law. In fact this usually happens repeatedly and very often the first offence is early in the journey. It seems to me that most of the other traffic is doing exactly the same thing. On the other hand I frequently find that I consider the stated limit to significantly exceed the speed which I consider to be safe in the prevailing conditions, so I slow down. Speed limits seem to be generally accepted by many drivers as being not merely the maximum speed permitted but also the recommended speed for any particular section. Drop below that speed and you invite frustrated reactions from other drivers who consider you to be going too slow for the conditions. Thus we are encouraged to walk a tightrope where our speed, both max and min, is very closely specified and any minor deviation is punished. I have even been in the situation where a car pulled out on me from a side junction where visibility was perfect but he still nearly took out my front wheel. His excuse was that, since I was riding a motorcycle, I should have got out of his way by going faster. I'm getting weary of playing this stupid game and lately I have begun to take much less notice of the legal limit, preferring to adjust my speed solely by analysing the prevailing conditions. Also consider that a fixed safety limit should perhaps cover the worst case scenario, ie when traffic is heavy, visibility is poor and its raining. Therefore, when the prevailing conditions are good, it ought to be safe to go a little faster. This logic seems to have escaped the authorities. As an example, my last speed camera offence took place on a main route into the centre of Leicester which throbs with traffic, pedestrians, parked cars etc at peak times. The limit is 30mph, controlled by a camera. This camera caught me doing 42mph but, while this is significantly over the limit, the offence took place at 3.15am on a dry summer morning when the road was completely deserted. This is hardly the same offence as exceeding the limit during rush hour, but the authorities seemed completely unable to understand this. I asked for a speed awareness course on the grounds that while I was technically in breach of the law there was no danger involved and therefore points on my licence, and the consequent hike in insurance premium for a "dangerous" driver was inappropriate..... but was refused and fined instead, along with further costs for having had the cheek to go along and make my case in court. Unfortunately I think that the whole issue of speeding and speed limits is bound up with a lot of woolly psychology surrounding the behaviour of mr average, leaving the responsible driver at a distinct disadvantage. It annoys me intensely to think that four "offences" such as the one described above could see me banned from driving. To be honest, if my speed was monitored constantly, I reckon I would get banned on every journey I make, despite never really doing anything particularly dangerous. And yet I seem to have managed to be a biker for over four decades now, without collecting any broken bones or major scars in the entire period. On the plus side though, on a twisty back road, at night, in the rain, I find that the speed limit often does reflect a safe maximum, so I can relax in the knowledge that I'm unlikely to exceed it. Sorry 'bout the rant.
In my experience most drivers just drive at the speed they feel most comfortable, regardless of the posted speed limits. I've lost count of the number of times I've followed cars doing 40 in a 50, but when they get to a 30 limit they carry on doing 40, seemingly oblivious to the fact they're speeding. And that's fine by me, even if it does irritate slightly. That's all I want to do, just ride around at a speed I'm happy with. S'not my fault the speed I'm happy with is 130...
I've also been paying quite a lot of attention to white lines recently. From what I can make out, they are completely arbitrary. Just on my way to work there are solid white lines that suddenly break up, inviting you into an overtake. Even on a bike, this would be suicidal, so I stay behind the traffic. In umpteen other places, there are sold lines going on for miles where it is perfectly safe to overtake. So I generally respect the lines - far more than speed limits - but in some cases (stuck behind a 20 mph numpty just before 2 miles of twists - I rely on my own judgement. That judgement isn't infallible, but it hasn't seen me do any hospital time in my biking career (30+ years) and I've never had a real prang in a car. Oh yes, I know, nearly everyone thinks they are a better driver than average. Well, some of us are - because we are actually concentrating on the job in hand.
I quite agree. I take driving and riding very seriously - I have to concentrate cos normally I'm doing something illegal, usually speeding. And all the while I see people dawdling along well within the limit, but they're on the phone, or even worse, texting, playing Candy Crush, doing their make up, doing crosswords, etc, etc, etc. You cannot tell me that they are safer drivers than me, going a bit fast but concentrating all the while. I just don't believe it.
I have seen a lot of talk recently about the fitting of limitters that will prevent any vehicle exceding the speed limit - some people seem to think this will cut accident rates... It will not ! Down here in the Falklands there is a blanket 40mph limit on all roads outside towns ( most of the roads are actually gravel, not tarmac ). The locals completely ignore the limit and drive at whatever speed they see as appropriate, taking into account the weather, the wind, other vehicles, the wildlife etc. Quite often they are travelling at nearly double the limit, but ( and this is the important bit ) they also know when to slow down and when it is appropriate to travel at a lot less than the limit. They very rarely have accidents. On the other hand the vast majority of military vehicles are limited to 40mph. So, what happens is they are driven against the limitter at all times, never falling below 40mph ever no matter what the prevailing conditions are. This is because the drivers have been brainwashed by the British obsesion that all accidents are caused by speed - so how can they possibly have an accident if they aren't speeding? Not surprisingly they tend to have quite a few... Speed limitters will just have the same effect as ABS and air-bags : drivers will pay less attention because they will believe that they are safe - it's called "risk compensation"...
I have to say that when forced to toodle along very slowly, I tend to switch off. There just isn't enough new stimuli to keep my concentration level up. I once had to drive back from the airport in my sister-in-law's Renault 4. I was creeping along the motorway so slowly, I actually missed the junction for home - which is all of two miles away. I've only driven that stretch of road about 1'000 times. OAPs probably find going along at 40 quite exciting, trying to process all that information. I don't. It sends me to sleep - there seems to be nothing to "do".
Driving at considerably less than the prevailing limit is as bad or worse than being considerably over the limit. It causes tailbacks and frustration leading to some idiot doing a suicidal overtake with no guarantee of getting back in line.
Sounds like the place I got done, the road to Quatford Cafe. Sneaky sod, still, I was speeding, 35 in a 30.
