Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

I have always been cynical about speed cameras, feeling they are just revenue earners with little or no real effect on driving habits.
I somewhat reluctantly have to say I've changed my mind in the case of "average speed" cameras. In my experience, these do actually seem to improve traffic flow, by reducing the difference between the time (and distance) cars take to brake from and accelerate back to cruising speed after a stoppage, or in heavy traffic. Result is smoother (and often faster) movement for everyone.
Whether they improve peoples' awareness on other roads I don't know.

Off the motorways, most UK roads now seem to be designed to stop people driving fast anyway- There's congestion, cameras, traffic islands, double white lines, "no overtaking" signs , "Twenty's Plenty" areas...

ETA- No, I would not take points for anyone else and I'd be offended to be asked, just as I'm offended by Mr.Huhne, who is emerging as a creepy , untrustworthy and self-obsessed individual who really should never be allowed to have power over anyone again. School milk monitor would be too much.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
In the UK it's your responsibility to ensure that your speedometer is correctly calibrated (or at least to understand that it isn't)
Click to expand...

That is also within the law in the state of PA as well. It's just the state realizes that it is not possible that every single vehicle is perfectly calibrated. Nor is it possible to see the EXACT speed that a vehicle is going with most speedometers anyway. They just don't want cops pulling people over if they happen to be to going 1 or 2 mph above the speed limit. Makes it appear as though you're just simply being harassed.

Soapy Sam said:
I have always been cynical about speed cameras, feeling they are just revenue earners with little or no real effect on driving habits.
I somewhat reluctantly have to say I've changed my mind in the case of "average speed" cameras. In my experience, these do actually seem to improve traffic flow, by reducing the difference between the time (and distance) cars take to brake from and accelerate back to cruising speed after a stoppage, or in heavy traffic. Result is smoother (and often faster) movement for everyone.
Whether they improve peoples' awareness on other roads I don't know.

Off the motorways, most UK roads now seem to be designed to stop people driving fast anyway- There's congestion, cameras, traffic islands, double white lines, "no overtaking" signs , "Twenty's Plenty" areas...

ETA- No, I would not take points for anyone else and I'd be offended to be asked, just as I'm offended by Mr.Huhne, who is emerging as a creepy , untrustworthy and self-obsessed individual who really should never be allowed to have power over anyone again. School milk monitor would be too much.
Click to expand...

I assume "no overtaking" signs are those "No Passing Zone" signs here.

Twenty Plenties? The heck is that?
 
Last edited:
20 MPH zones usually outside schools. Most are 'Part Time' only operating when the signs are lit.

There are also 'Variable Limits' on some areas of Motorway that get very congested at 'Rush Hour' Illuminated overhead signs show the speed in force, usually 70 or 50. These are backed up with cameras and traffic patrols.

I have never understood the argument that cameras a a 'Revenue earner'

they get £60 per victim. How much do people think it costs to install and maintain the cameras, employ the staff that process the pictures and administrer the fines and, if needed prosecute?
There won't be much change from the £60
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
20 MPH zones usually outside schools. Most are 'Part Time' only operating when the signs are lit.

There are also 'Variable Limits' on some areas of Motorway that get very congested at 'Rush Hour' Illuminated overhead signs show the speed in force, usually 70 or 50. These are backed up with cameras and traffic patrols.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. We have those as well. The most notorious location, is with an elementary school just off a dangerous "limited-access" part of a highway in my local area.

Also, I thought the UK went by KPH, not MPH. Or were you just converting it to MPH for us Americans?

I have never understood the argument that cameras a a 'Revenue earner'

they get £60 per victim. How much do people think it costs to install and maintain the cameras, employ the staff that process the pictures and administrer the fines and, if needed prosecute?
There won't be much change from the £60
Click to expand...

I would bet you might be surprised. Dunno how drivers are in the UK, but here along the eastern seaboard of the US, there are a LOT of nutty drivers out there. I would bet such a system, installed in the right locations, would be pretty lucrative "revenue earners."

Also, I thought the UK went by KPH, not MPH. Or were you just converting it to MPH for us Americans?
 
Nihilianth said:
Oh, I thought the UK did away with the Imperial system.
Click to expand...

The metric system is taught in schools and has been for 30+ years

Generally things are sold in metric measures (weight and volume) although you can display the imperial alternative as long as the metric measure is shown. There are exceptions, most notably beer and milk so you have the bizarre system of buying beer in (20 oz.) pints and spirits in 25ml (or 30ml, or 35ml) measures. Petrol is sold in litres but fuel consumption is usually stated in miles per gallon :confused:

Distances and speeds are measured in miles.

Young people in my experience refer to shorter distances in metres but longer distances in miles, heights in feet and inches but weights in kilogrammes. It can be confusing to the uninitiated.
 
Since 2007, central Government has funded road safety programme through grants, but how these grants are spent is decided by the road safety partnerships.
Meanwhile the revenue from speed camera fines goes to the Treasury.
This in turn means that those who decide how much to spend on cameras are not ultimately the people who receive the revenue from fines, which calls into question the extent to which local authorities could be motivated by finance when installing speed cameras.
For example Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership received a grant of £1.4 million last year, while a spokesman estimated the revenue sent to Treasury was at a similar level if not less.
Click to expand...

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/are_speed_cameras_simply_cash_cows-1497
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I have never understood the argument that cameras a a 'Revenue earner'

they get £60 per victim. How much do people think it costs to install and maintain the cameras, employ the staff that process the pictures and administrer the fines and, if needed prosecute?
There won't be much change from the £60
Click to expand...

I agree. When "austerity" hit Bristol and the surrounding area one of the first things to go were the speed cameras in all but the most dangerous places.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12895106
 
Agatha said:
So Mr Huhne was caught by a speeding camera, and as he already had 9 (or possibly more) points on his licence, he was facing an automatic six month ban. He then allegedly persuaded/coerced his wife into admitting that she was the driver on the NIP. She will have then been offered the SAC/3 points and £60, and she paid the fine and had the points put on her licence.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify this part, the speed awareness course is a relatively new introduction. Since the offence here happened 10 years ago, she won't have had that option and will have been forced to take the points and fine.

As to the topic, I complained in another thread recently about the focus on speeding rather than actual dangerous driving being a big problem, and I think this is another symptom of it. Speeding and attempts to catch people speeding are so common that most people just don't see it as a big thing. In particular, given the often rather arbitrary and out of date speed limits in many places people often just don't understand why they should obey them a lot of the time and therefore don't, leading to having a few points on your licence being pretty common. It's therefore not particularly surprising that many people don't see an issue with taking points for someone else. After all, it's not really a crime, it's just a minor administrative hassle that everyone goes through at some point.

Note that I'm not saying this is what I think or what people should think, just that this is the general perception. Car related crimes are pretty much the only crimes you can admit to and be responded to with anecdotes about how someone else also committed that crime, rather than horror that you're happily admitting to being a convicted criminal. A single high-profile case isn't going to change that.
 
Cuddles said:
Just to clarify this part, the speed awareness course is a relatively new introduction. Since the offence here happened 10 years ago, she won't have had that option and will have been forced to take the points and fine.

As to the topic, I complained in another thread recently about the focus on speeding rather than actual dangerous driving being a big problem, and I think this is another symptom of it. Speeding and attempts to catch people speeding are so common that most people just don't see it as a big thing. In particular, given the often rather arbitrary and out of date speed limits in many places people often just don't understand why they should obey them a lot of the time and therefore don't, leading to having a few points on your licence being pretty common. It's therefore not particularly surprising that many people don't see an issue with taking points for someone else. After all, it's not really a crime, it's just a minor administrative hassle that everyone goes through at some point.

Note that I'm not saying this is what I think or what people should think, just that this is the general perception. Car related crimes are pretty much the only crimes you can admit to and be responded to with anecdotes about how someone else also committed that crime, rather than horror that you're happily admitting to being a convicted criminal. A single high-profile case isn't going to change that.
Click to expand...

But do you realise that Britain has just about the safest roads in Europe? Maybe we could afford to lighten up a little.
 
The Don said:
The metric system is taught in schools and has been for 30+ years

Generally things are sold in metric measures (weight and volume) although you can display the imperial alternative as long as the metric measure is shown. There are exceptions, most notably beer and milk so you have the bizarre system of buying beer in (20 oz.) pints and spirits in 25ml (or 30ml, or 35ml) measures. Petrol is sold in litres but fuel consumption is usually stated in miles per gallon :confused:

Distances and speeds are measured in miles.

Young people in my experience refer to shorter distances in metres but longer distances in miles, heights in feet and inches but weights in kilogrammes. It can be confusing to the uninitiated.
Click to expand...

Every once in a while, there is a small discussion about switching over to metric here in the US. Seeing your explanation of what happens in Britain, I would rather not see us go through that. The English system is just fine, if you ask me. (Yes, we call it the "English system," not hte "Imperial system." lol.
 
You know, this whole fiasco shows how honesty usually is the best policy. For anything other than the most serious of crimes, trying to cover things up only makes things worse when you do finally get caught. It's funny how people think that they can put one over on the system, that they're too smart to be found out. There's some interesting psychology going on with cases like this.
 
Nihilianth said:
Every once in a while, there is a small discussion about switching over to metric here in the US. Seeing your explanation of what happens in Britain, I would rather not see us go through that. The English system is just fine, if you ask me. (Yes, we call it the "English system," not hte "Imperial system." lol.
Click to expand...

How much does a pint of water weigh?
 
anglolawyer said:
But do you realise that Britain has just about the safest roads in Europe? Maybe we could afford to lighten up a little.
Click to expand...

Nearly 2000 deaths and over 200,000 accidents per year. "Better than other people" is not the same as "good". If it's possible to improve road safety, is the fact that others are worse than us really a good reason not to do so? Certainly it doesn't suggest that we should allow things to get worse.

More to the point, the issue here is the focus on speed limits rather than dangerous driving, and whether that creates a perception that certain crimes aren't really crimes, to the point where many people don't think there's anything wrong with lying to the police and courts about who committed a crime. Compare the statistics for motorways from your link (I'm assuming they're correct, but I haven't actually checked) with the speed limits on those motorways.

Sure, the UK has the lowest speed limit by a small amount, but then look at the variation. Sweden has the next safest motorways with a limit of 120 km/h, just 7 km/h higher than the UK. Portugal has by far the least safe motorways with a speed limit of... 120 km/h. The Netherlands has a higher maximum speed limit, but is still has some of the safest motorways. Belgium has half the death rate of Portugal, more than double the death rate of Switzerland, yet they all have the same speed limit. Germany famously doesn't have a speed limit at all on many roads, yet has safer motorways than many countries that do.

In fact, here's a quick graph I made showing the motorway deaths per billion km from your link vs. maximum motorway speed limits (I put Germany at 150 as an arbitrary number that shows it's higher than the rest):
picture.php

Not really any obvious correlation there. Clearly it's possible to have high speed limits with relatively safe roads, and lower speed limits with relatively dangerous ones.

So yes, the UK has safer roads than many countries. But there doesn't seem to be much support for the idea that this is anything to do with speed limits. Hell, your own link makes exactly this argument:
Despite our motorways being the safest in Europe by a country mile, the government pig-headedly refuses to raise the utterly discredited 70 mph motorway speed limit.
Click to expand...
and then goes on to agree with exactly what I argue for:
We are not saying that road safety in the UK cannot be improved, but the way to achieve that is clearly to praise drivers for being the safest in Europe, and to encourage excellence through education.
Click to expand...
Road safety can be improved, but this should be done by teaching people to drive properly, not by just slapping speed cameras up everywhere to the point that people no longer consider certain criminal offences to be crimes at all.

(I should note that I'm pretty sure I don't agree with a lot of what that site says. While I haven't read most of it, there's enough ranting about car haters and anti-car cartels to see it's pretty clearly a biased advocacy group and not really taking an objective look at things. But that doesn't preclude it from making some good points.)
 
Bear in mind the original reason for the 70 mph "national speed limit" wasn't road safety, it was fuel economy.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom