'Hypocrisy' of speeding middle-class motorists

[jeppers]

Great post jeppers. Welcome to Sheffield Forum

 

Cheers mj, thanks for the welcome

 

Personally, I'd like to see many more traffic police out and about catching all bad driving.

 

I absolutely agree with this, police can offer discretion where and when appropriate - a bloody good dressing down and a request not to do it again is often far more persuasive than the noise of a brown envelope hitting the doormat. They are also far more effective than speed camera's at dealing with those who are not taxing/insuring their vehicles.

 

But those who believe that speeding is a "victimless crime" as long as there is no accident are just plain wrong.

 

Sorry, but I disagree with this entirely. There are many occasions where someone going faster than the posted speed limit has absolutely no impact on anyone else. Just because some inappropriate speeding can cause upset, does not mean that every occasion involves a victim of some description.

 

The idea that road safety is predicated solely on speed cameras is a myth, a whole raft of official directives target lawless behaviour, from talking on a mobile to drunk driving to tailgating, driving tired, driving whilst on drugs or uninsured and so on and so on.

 

And herein lies the problem. Nowhere have I said that road safety is or should be predicated on speed cameras, however to a lot of people in the UK, this is the perception.

 

To compound this, you have only considered laws aimed at minimising human errors - and let's be honest, you've only focused on those that the driver of a vehicle makes, and not even considered other the responsibilities that other road users must exhibit. Just simply having a law saying you can't do this, you can't do that, does not make a speed limit right, or a junction or a stretch of road safe. As I said, a local authority needs to use all tools at their disposal to make the road safe, and not just rely on speed cameras or legal directives.

 

Nor are speed limits arbitrary....<removed some completely obtuse correlation with the age of sexual consent> they are the law.

 

You are right, the observance of speed limits is a legal requirement, however the number on the stick that tells you what speed not to go above, is arbitrary.

 

Take the 70mph national speed limit for motorways and dual carriageways with a central reservation. This was introduced in December 1965 as a temporary measure. There was no rhyme or reason for 70mph to be chosen, heck most of the cars on the road at the time couldn't even reach 70! Why do we still have this arbitrary number governing how fast we go on the motorway when the car of today has better brakes, tyres, maintenance schedules etc etc etc? Where is the evidence that this particular number is the right one for this type of road? There honestly isn't any evidence or justification for this. And in my opinion, this is something that is replicated in the numbers on speed limits on roads throughout the UK.

 

We have some of the safest roads in the world, but we're not reducing the accident rates as fast as other countries. Why is this? Speed cameras have been in use for many years now, but they are not the be-all and end-all. Councils are only just realising this and are starting to think about what needs to be done to increase the safety of our roads. Even 1 death is 1 death too many, but to use only 1 tool to fix the problem when there are more tools that can be used as well, is not the answer for a so-called civilised society.

[Keith Rich]

I'm not sure why she thinks it applies more to middle classes than anyone else.

 

Perhaps the hypocrisy part applies more to the middle classes - though I'm doubtful even of that. It makes me wonder if she assumes that all working classes are naturally criminal-minded and therefore speeding would not be hypocritical to them.

 

When someone is convicted of speeding certain details are taken which puts each driver into a social class. Research has shown that it is mainly the middle classes who speed.

 

I would be willing to bet they are middle class Tory supporters as Tories always think they are better than everyone else and laws that apply to others don't apply to them.

[mj.scuba]

When someone is convicted of speeding certain details are taken which puts each driver into a social class. Research has shown that it is mainly the middle classes who speed.

 

I would be willing to bet they are middle class Tory supporters as Tories always think they are better than everyone else and laws that apply to others don't apply to them.

 

I knew before I even finished reading the first sentance, it would some how be the Tories fault.

[Keith Rich]

I knew before I even finished reading the first sentance, it would some how be the Tories fault.

 

And you were right.

[1ofTheseDays]

When someone is convicted of speeding certain details are taken which puts each driver into a social class. Research has shown that it is mainly the middle classes who speed.

 

I would be willing to bet they are middle class Tory supporters as Tories always think they are better than everyone else and laws that apply to others don't apply to them.

 

are you for real or what? your not aware of the council estate chavy boy racer culture?

[Dogs Of War]

I knew before I even finished reading the first sentance, it would some how be the Tories fault.

 

:hihi:

 

The bitter Labourites are so predictable

[A.B.Yaffle]

How is speeding anti-social? Isn't the definition of anti-social causing misery and upset to other people around you?

 

When I'm walking at the side of the road, someone travelling at 35MPH on a 30MPH speed limit isn't going to ruin my day and cause me to want to call 101.

 

A child hit by a car driving at 35 mph is more likely to die than a child hit at 30 mph. From an extremely selfish point of view it probably won't ruin your day, but it could ruin the day and future days of a grieving family.

 

My view is that, as well as having brightly-lit cameras to deter drivers from speeding near schools, the law should be changed to allow cameras to be hidden anywhere to catch these criminals. If drivers can pay enough attention to slow down where they know there is a camera, maybe such a law would encourage them to be able to concentrate on their driving on any road as there may be a hidden camera.

[DT Ralge]

A child hit by a car driving at 35 mph is more likely to die than a child hit at 30 mph.

 

These words, very often used, even in the Think! adverts are not helpful.

A child does not generally survive being hit at 30 or 35mph. I hope no-one here actually believes that a 30mph launch into orbit is survivable.

The less punchy statement of the truth is that a pedestrian of any age has a greater chance of survival if hit by a car travelling at 30 that has a chance of braking than a car in the same situation travelling at 35 and braking.

The well-worn video on my laptop and iPhone from Drivetech of an Omega being driven at different speeds on a flat, dry, high-grip road surface (how many of those do you find in Sheffield?) with the driver knowing where he is going to brake shows the difference of impact speeds to be higher than many suspect.

The implication, of course, is that, in the real world the difference in impact speeds, should the worst happen, will be a lot worse simply by the laws of physics, kinetic energy and all that.

So, at the point at which the 30mph has stopped in this ideal track scenario, the 32, 35 and 40mph car is still travelling at 11, 18 and 26mph with the sickening exponential increase in impact and damage done.

[Cyclone]

Strangely though, most speed camera's aren't in 30 zones, nor are they close to schools.

[DT Ralge]

And herein lies the problem. Nowhere have I said that road safety is or should be predicated on speed cameras, however to a lot of people in the UK, this is the perception.

 

To compound this, you have only considered laws aimed at minimising human errors - and let's be honest, you've only focused on those that the driver of a vehicle makes, and not even considered other the responsibilities that other road users must exhibit. Just simply having a law saying you can't do this, you can't do that, does not make a speed limit right, or a junction or a stretch of road safe. As I said, a local authority needs to use all tools at their disposal to make the road safe, and not just rely on speed cameras or legal directives.

 

You are right, the observance of speed limits is a legal requirement, however the number on the stick that tells you what speed not to go above, is arbitrary.

 

Take the 70mph national speed limit for motorways and dual carriageways with a central reservation. This was introduced in December 1965 as a temporary measure. There was no rhyme or reason for 70mph to be chosen, heck most of the cars on the road at the time couldn't even reach 70! Why do we still have this arbitrary number governing how fast we go on the motorway when the car of today has better brakes, tyres, maintenance schedules etc etc etc? Where is the evidence that this particular number is the right one for this type of road? There honestly isn't any evidence or justification for this. And in my opinion, this is something that is replicated in the numbers on speed limits on roads throughout the UK.

 

We have some of the safest roads in the world, but we're not reducing the accident rates as fast as other countries. Why is this? Speed cameras have been in use for many years now, but they are not the be-all and end-all. Councils are only just realising this and are starting to think about what needs to be done to increase the safety of our roads. Even 1 death is 1 death too many, but to use only 1 tool to fix the problem when there are more tools that can be used as well, is not the answer for a so-called civilised society.

 

Welcome indeed to the fold. This thread has potential!

 

I agree with you that the ONLY thing we talk about on here is speed, cameras/scameras etc. whereas the driving task and the errors a driver makes come from many more directions.

I am glad that you recognise that councils have a larger toolbox than just cameras to deal with the errors we make as drivers in their deliberations over such things as junction design, traffic calming, keeping pedestrians and drivers apart (puffin crossings, railings). It's a shame that there is not wider public knowledge of the width and breadth of their activity. They are destined to deal with issues after the event and have numerous, often conflicting, objectives (safety vs. keeping the traffic moving) that they have to balance. They don't always get it right, of course. So, the general driving public could do with appreciating their efforts a little more and see beyond speed bumps and cameras.

 

Across the UK we have seen a drop in fatalities (to 2222 in 2009) overall AND have seen the share of these fatalities in urban areas drop to just 40% (from 46% of the 3500 deaths yearly between 1994 and 2004). So the councils' use of their large road safety toolbox has, in fact, already achieved a great deal.

 

Speed limits are, indeed, arbitrary.

The fact that we have 70 on m/w's is historical but it has been copied around Europe and we are probably stuck with it. Any move to a higher limit or no limit at all ("cars can do it after all quite safely!") would require an analysis of German stats, I guess. I have read on SF the claim that the "Germans seem to manage OK ..." so I looked into the German stats with an open mind - I truthfully have no axe to grind having been driven in Germany at 127mph (great fun [vaguely] but rather scary.)

So, scratching just the surface of huge volume of German crash, injury, fatality stats I can report:

Germany has 12000 km of Autobahn. 55% of this has a limit imposed of some sort. So 45% of their motorway kilometers are unlimited. In my mind, if I was suggesting we should go down the same route as the Germans, I would hope and expect to see that +/- 45% (or less?) of the fatalities happening on these unlimited stretches. The actual figure for 2008 was 73% (363 of the 495 deaths) with the equivalent figure for serious injuries 68%. There will have been many other factors behind these stats than just speed but the basic rules of probability and physics apply. Sooner or later the fallible human will get it wrong and the higher speeds and the larger differentials of speeds on these roads conspire to guarantee poorer outcomes. (BTW in at least one German state (Land) limiting unlimited stretches has been considered. They have an uphill struggle, though. Germans are fiercely proud and protective of their ability to boot it AND the German car manufacturing lobby has ENORMOUS power and influence.)

 

So the conclusion from this "extensive" research is that an arbitrary 70 (ignored by many) is probably "safer" (better outcomes) than something higher (still to be ignored by many) and "safer" than a free-for-all.