[news] On the spot fines for bad driving

[speckytecky]

BBC News on Bad drivers Sounds like the Government might at last be doing something good toward clamping down on dodgy drivers.

 

I hope it goes through and that the Police actually have officers on the roads to do some enforcement.

 

Tailgaters are my pet hate alongside inconsiderate barstewards who overtake into blind bends.

[jinnantonnixx]

Pros and cons - I can see wealthy drivers nodding their head; a fine here, a fine there, get out of jail free (or at least keep the points at bay).

I have noticed that these days police patrols are rarer than unicorn dung. When I passed my test back in the '80s, I recall patrol and panda cars all over the place. This kept the boy racers in check. XR2s, Escort Mk IIs, ah, those were the days. Anyway, all very well having on the spot fines, but with no fine-ers, there can be no fine-ees.

[featured_spectre]

Fancy Driving around Bedfordshire then, I see atleast 2 on the way to and from work.

[RobMongoose]

I hope if they're going to do this that it will also include the inconsiderate and infuriating drivers who insist on crawling along national limit roads at about 45 mph. That irritates me considerably more than any of the things mentioned in the news story.

[LeMarchand]

I hope if they're going to do this that it will also include the inconsiderate and infuriating drivers who insist on crawling along national limit roads at about 45 mph. That irritates me considerably more than any of the things mentioned in the news story.

 

As infuriating as that is, they're within their rights to do so. What's more infuriating is the way that it seems to be the only speed they drive at: when the limit changes to 30 or 40mph for a village, they speed off ahead!

 

Anyway, I agree with the "what's the point if there's no-one around to enforce the fines?" feelings above, plus the "rich people will just cough up and continue driving like morons" sentiments and add that given the already-existing plethora of sites/books about how to weasel your way out of speeding/parking tickets it all seems a bit of a waste of time and just a good soundbite for Scameron.

[TechMonkey]

As infuriating as that is, they're within their rights to do so. What's more infuriating is the way that it seems to be the only speed they drive at: when the limit changes to 30 or 40mph for a village, they speed off ahead!

 

Anyway, I agree with the "what's the point if there's no-one around to enforce the fines?" feelings above, plus the "rich people will just cough up and continue driving like morons" sentiments and add that given the already-existing plethora of sites/books about how to weasel your way out of speeding/parking tickets it all seems a bit of a waste of time and just a good soundbite for Scameron.

 

The road I go commute on is constantly congested by one car doing 35-40, 45 max, along a 50-60 road. The queue created is just stupid, ok some of those in the queue would catch up with anyone, but they hold up the flow. Both ends of the roads end up at a roundabout/filter system so when that queue reaches either end it causes a blockage as that amount of traffic can't be accommodated at once. & yes they are always the ones that reach a village half way along and carry on at 40 through the 30 zone.

 

I can just see it being another thing people whine at the Police about. "Shouldn't you be out catching real criminals" will be the whine, not realising that there is a direct link between the the lack of cracking down on small crimes and the escalation of major crime.

[RobMongoose]

As infuriating as that is, they're within their rights to do so. What's more infuriating is the way that it seems to be the only speed they drive at: when the limit changes to 30 or 40mph for a village, they speed off ahead!

 

Does it not count as failing to make good progress, or interupting the flow of traffic or something? Definately agree on the point about continuing at the same speed!

[MK-2]

I hope if they're going to do this that it will also include the inconsiderate and infuriating drivers who insist on crawling along national limit roads at about 45 mph. That irritates me considerably more than any of the things mentioned in the news story.

 

i assume that if said person is doing 45 you aren't sitting inches away from their bumper trying to force them to go quicker?

 

it's a maximum speed limit of (for example) 60, so as long as they aren't driving over that speed or under it enough to cause a hazard (which i doubt 45 is causing anybody a hazard) then they are quite entitled to.

there can always be other factors too. not everybody is as confident on the road as you may be, so they slow down slightly to feel more comfortable. i know a few country lanes near me that have a 60 limit, but i dont know them well enough so tend to slow down a lot there as i dont find myself half way up a tree. but i still have those that think that 60 is only a guide and those blind corners should be taken at 70 at least right up behind me trying to edge past.

also, remember if you have a flat and have a space saver wheel put on, then you are limited to speeds again. i know this wont account for every single person you encounter driving slower, but to lump them all in a category as "worse than tailgating and undertaking" is silly.

 

Does it not count as failing to make good progress, or interupting the flow of traffic or something? Definately agree on the point about continuing at the same speed!

I wouldn't have thought so. Traffic is still flowing, just not at the maximum limit allowed, and failing to make good progress, again...they are making progress, just not to the satisfaction of other drivers

[bossman]

As infuriating as that is, they're within their rights to do so.

 

@LeMarchand:

 

Actually you can be fined for going too slow and holding up the traffic if the conditions of the road and weather are consistent with the speed limit of the road in question.

 

Its all about the flow of the traffic and it is up to the individual officer to determine at that time whether or not a road traffic offence has been committed taking all the different variables into account.

 

What might be conceived as a bad manoeuvre by one officer may not be by another.

[MK-2]

@LeMarchand:

 

Actually you can be fined for going too slow and holding up the traffic if the conditions of the road and weather are consistent with the speed limit of the road in question.

 

Its all about the flow of the traffic and it is up to the individual officer to determine at that time whether or not a road traffic offence has been committed taking all the different variables into account.

 

What might be conceived as a bad manoeuvre by one officer may not be by another.

 

but i've had drivers up my a**e because 57 in a 60 was too slow and i should have obviously been pushing 90 to keep them happy. if its slow enough to cause a genuine hazard, and not just mean impatient people undertake because they want to, then yes, it should be a fine, but if 45 is still keeping the traffic flowing, then where do you set the limit? that then means 55 in a 60 is too slow. why not just get every car with cruise control, knock it on to 60 and be done with it. i bet some drivers would still over/undertake even if everybody else were doing dead on the limit

[pcstru]

but i've had drivers up my a**e because 57 in a 60 was too slow and i should have obviously been pushing 90 to keep them happy.

 

Quite. And the only thing you can reasonably do when someone drives too close, is gradually slow down until the gap they are willing to leave is appropriate for the speed.

[LeMarchand]

@LeMarchand:

 

Actually you can be fined for going too slow and holding up the traffic if the conditions of the road and weather are consistent with the speed limit of the road in question.

 

I stand corrected. However, I firmly believe that MK-2's assessment is spot on:

 

it's a maximum speed limit of (for example) 60, so as long as they aren't driving over that speed or under it enough to cause a hazard (which i doubt 45 is causing anybody a hazard) then they are quite entitled to.

there can always be other factors too. not everybody is as confident on the road as you may be, so they slow down slightly to feel more comfortable. i know a few country lanes near me that have a 60 limit, but i dont know them well enough so tend to slow down a lot there as i dont find myself half way up a tree. but i still have those that think that 60 is only a guide and those blind corners should be taken at 70 at least right up behind me trying to edge past.

also, remember if you have a flat and have a space saver wheel put on, then you are limited to speeds again. i know this wont account for every single person you encounter driving slower, but to lump them all in a category as "worse than tailgating and undertaking" is silly.

 

Does it not count as failing to make good progress, or interupting the flow of traffic or something? Definately agree on the point about continuing at the same speed!

 

I wouldn't have thought so. Traffic is still flowing, just not at the maximum limit allowed, and failing to make good progress, again...they are making progress, just not to the satisfaction of other drivers

 

When one of Mme LeMarchand's girls was in Aberystwyth Uni the roads on the approach (mainly very bendy and on the side of a small mountain with a steep drop to the side) were 60mph - but there was no way in hell that I was going that speed (particularly on the way back in the dark)! Those familiar with the road may well have felt confident enough to do so, though.

[pcstru]

@LeMarchand:

 

Actually you can be fined for going too slow and holding up the traffic if the conditions of the road and weather are consistent with the speed limit of the road in question.

 

There is no specific offence of driving "too slow" or "holding up the traffic". You can be stopped for ANY reason and you could be prosecuted for "inconsiderate driving" or perhaps "driving without due care and attention". I very much doubt a case would stick if the prosecution case was just "going a bit too slowly". As a driver you have to be prepared to deal with agriucultural vehicles, cyclists and horses. You have no right to *expect* to be able to do 60 just because the speed *LIMIT* is 60.

[Andrew_C]

I'd agree that not everyone who drives at 45 in 60/70 limits is guilty of obstruction, but some really do take the ****. I follow a lot of 20% under whatever the limit is, just under 50 in 60, just over 30 in 40 stretches and near stopped in the 30 zones. Same car, just won't drive to sensible speeds whatever the limit. Edited May 11, 2011 by Andrew_C

[featured_spectre]

20% less than the speed limit is considered dangerous driving as it CAUSES more accidents than it prevents...so doing <24mph in a 30mph zone is a risk, as is doing <48mph in a 60mph. Anything between the 20% and the limit is deemed safe (Driving examiner told me that once).

[teejay]

Pros and cons - I can see wealthy drivers nodding their head; a fine here, a fine there, get out of jail free (or at least keep the points at bay).

 

If you read the article, they can get up to 3 points for each offence. As these are on the spot, they can't do the 'wife was driving, son was driving' trick to spread the points around.

[LeMarchand]

20% less than the speed limit is considered dangerous driving as it CAUSES more accidents than it prevents...so doing <24mph in a 30mph zone is a risk, as is doing <48mph in a 60mph. Anything between the 20% and the limit is deemed safe (Driving examiner told me that once).

 

Surely the accidents are caused by other drivers taking risks because they are frustrated by the "slow" driver, though? Whilst the aforementioned old duffers are probably just driving slowly, the person who slows down to 20mph in a busy street with cars parked either side and a lot of pedestrian traffic is probably going to annoy the BMW driver who thinks it is his right to drive at the speed limit (if not above) at all times. Whilst the slower driver may be what causes the other driver to take risks and thus cause an accident, surely the fault is ultimately with the latter?

[pcstru]

20% less than the speed limit is considered dangerous driving as it CAUSES more accidents than it prevents...so doing <24mph in a 30mph zone is a risk, as is doing <48mph in a 60mph. Anything between the 20% and the limit is deemed safe (Driving examiner told me that once).

 

Your driving examiner was talking utter tosh.

[Andrew_C]

"Failing to make appropriate progress" is a fail on the test. Why should it be different AFTER you've passed?

 

FWIW, I was not referring to busy town roads with lots of parked cars, but a rural A road which has only recently been progressively restricted form 60to in some places 30. The road hasn't changed at all; it was good for 60 five years ago, now there are people cluttering it up at <30. I suspect that there are councillors living on it that like the quiet.

[GrumbleDook]

Doing 20% less that the speed limit is considered a risk (it is not considered dangerous, only that it is a possible cause for other drivers taking risks which could result in dangerous situations) but only in areas where driving can be expected to be at consistent speeds. On more single carriageway roads which are national speed limit it is a variable limit depending on the type of vehicle you are driving. It is reasonable to expect to be behind vehicles which may be driving far slower that 20% below the limit. Those drivers who are at the extreme end (agricultural vehicles, slow moving vehicles, etc) are expected to take regular action to allow the flow of traffic to resume, but this is not that case of goods vehicles which are speed limited or who have a lower speed limit to the maximum on that road.

 

There is never an excuse to rant about someone going 45mph on a national speed limit road. If you say that it means that it takes you far longer to get somewhere than it should do then you have not planned your journey properly as you *know* that some vehicles are limited to 40mph on the road and you could be behind them all the way.

 

The whole idea of a speed being safe or not is purely down to they way people are taught to drive to the limit instead of accepting the limit is what you should do to get the little extra to overtake if needed.

 

There is also the category of driver who enjoy the journey ... the destination is unimportant. Life is not a race track ...

[Theblacksheep]

I think a contestant on HIGNFY said a Michael Winner quote: "Do you know it only cost £60 and you can drive in a bus lane all day!"

[GrumbleDook]

"Failing to make appropriate progress" is a fail on the test. Why should it be different AFTER you've passed?

 

FWIW, I was not referring to busy town roads with lots of parked cars, but a rural A road which has only recently been progressively restricted form 60to in some places 30. The road hasn't changed at all; it was good for 60 five years ago, now there are people cluttering it up at <30. I suspect that there are councillors living on it that like the quiet.

 

Or people are taking stupid risks on bends. Just because a road is 60mph it does not mean you can travel at 60mph for the whole length of it. Too many people forget you have to slow down at times so many areas have taken the action to force it by changing the speed limit. They also try to apply it consistently across a county / area ... but it takes time to assess it, do the relevant checks and follow other parts of the process.

[CHR1S]

What is determined as bad/careless driving? Is it black and white?

[pcstru]

"Failing to make appropriate progress" is a fail on the test. Why should it be different AFTER you've passed?

 

FWIW, I was not referring to busy town roads with lots of parked cars, but a rural A road which has only recently been progressively restricted form 60to in some places 30. The road hasn't changed at all; it was good for 60 five years ago, now there are people cluttering it up at <30. I suspect that there are councillors living on it that like the quiet.

 

Well if you are referring to my comment "utter tosh" perhaps I have misunderstood nephilim's use of "Dangerous Driving" which is an actual offence. There are no ACPO guidelines, nor is there anything in law that says that "<20% of the speed limit" = dangerous driving. Sure you will fail your driving test if you consistently fail to keep up with the traffic or make satisfactory progress but that simply means you are not deemed to have aquired the necessary set of skills to an appropriate level, it does not mean that <20% of the posted limit = dangerous driving in ANY circumstances.

[pcstru]

What is determined as bad/careless driving? Is it black and white?

 

No, it's not; but there are guidelines. "Driving without due care and attention" is usually used where the highway code HAS been violated and that is likely to be the cause of an accident. So pulling out of a junction without looking, swerving around the road because you are fiddling with the radio. "Dangerous Driving" is much more serious and it's less usual that it's used when there hasn't actually been an accident, but even with an accident the charge is much more likely to be "driving without due care" because with dangerous driving you have to substantiate an intentional reckless disregard.

 

If someone does a dangerous overtake because the car in front was moving too slowly for them, then the fault is 100% with the person doing the overtake.