Losing your handbag isn't a crime. Driving too fast is. That's what we pay them for. Big fuss about fuck all.
We do not know how the handbag arrived at said spot, it may not have been lost.
Without condoning this, surely driving at 7-8 mph over the limit needs to be put into perspectve, certainly in the context of what we are discussing.
Lincs said he was driving 12mph over the limit. 42 in a 30 zone. You've seen that ad where the kid gets knocked over at 40 and dies and then gets knocked over at 30 and survives, right? That's why Lincs deserved a fine.
I'd say that kid needs to be a bit more careful crossing the road.
Children under the age of 12 have extreme difficulty gauging speed of approaching objects. This is why they often see a car in the distance and step out into the road anyway.
I'd like to think that no-one who has had a child run over, or knows one who has been doesn't see your, frankly, pathetic comment.
Losing your handbag isn't a crime. Driving too fast is. That's what we pay them for. Big fuss about fuck all.
We do not know how the handbag arrived at said spot, it may not have been lost.
Without condoning this, surely driving at 7-8 mph over the limit needs to be put into perspectve, certainly in the context of what we are discussing.
Lincs said he was driving 12mph over the limit. 42 in a 30 zone. You've seen that ad where the kid gets knocked over at 40 and dies and then gets knocked over at 30 and survives, right? That's why Lincs deserved a fine.
there is a difference between driving 'too fast' on a congested urban compared to a quiet rural road .. I wrote that there was not another car nor person in sight .. the road in question where I was nicked has a broad footpath in front of wheat fields on one side and large houses with long driveways on the other .. YES, I 'broke the law' .. BUT, the fine would have been the same had I been speeding on a road which fits your description, one with (e.g.) children running around .. this is where the law is out of touch with reality... no leeway for circumstances .. 'speeding' is pretty much a strict liability law and needs an expensive lawyer and a compliant court to ensure a 'not guilty' verdict .. M'luds .. I rest my case ((:>) and I'll pay the hundred .. real problem is the insurance, I'll declare the 3 points and pay a higher premium for a few years to come .. the lawyers call that double jeapordy
EDIT and last last word .. the road where I was caught is long and straight with a purpose built chicane to deter speeding motor cyclists who used to plague the area .. the limit is 30 mph just through this chicane. either side, the limit is 50 mph
I take your point Lincs. Yes, circumstances are never so cut and dry. But at the end of the day, you clearly know this road and the limits, yet you sped anyway. Sounds like the only person you should be annoyed with is you.
Losing your handbag isn't a crime. Driving too fast is. That's what we pay them for. Big fuss about fuck all.
We do not know how the handbag arrived at said spot, it may not have been lost.
Without condoning this, surely driving at 7-8 mph over the limit needs to be put into perspectve, certainly in the context of what we are discussing.
Lincs said he was driving 12mph over the limit. 42 in a 30 zone. You've seen that ad where the kid gets knocked over at 40 and dies and then gets knocked over at 30 and survives, right? That's why Lincs deserved a fine.
there is a difference between driving 'too fast' on a congested urban compared to a quiet rural road .. I wrote that there was not another car nor person in sight .. the road in question where I was nicked has a broad footpath in front of wheat fields on one side and large houses with long driveways on the other .. YES, I 'broke the law' .. BUT, the fine would have been the same had I been speeding on a road which fits your description, one with (e.g.) children running around .. this is where the law is out of touch with reality... no leeway for circumstances .. 'speeding' is pretty much a strict liability law and needs an expensive lawyer and a compliant court to ensure a 'not guilty' verdict .. M'luds .. I rest my case ((:>) and I'll pay the hundred .. real problem is the insurance, I'll declare the 3 points and pay a higher premium for a few years to come .. the lawyers call that double jeapordy
EDIT and last last word .. the road where I was caught is long and straight with a purpose built chicane to deter speeding motor cyclists who used to plague the area .. the limit is 30 mph just through this chicane. either side, the limit is 50 mph
I take your point Lincs. Yes, circumstances are never so cut and dry. But at the end of the day, you clearly know this road and the limits, yet you sped anyway. Sounds like the only person you should be annoyed with is you.
agreed + the bastard or camera who caught me ((:>)
Losing your handbag isn't a crime. Driving too fast is. That's what we pay them for. Big fuss about fuck all.
We do not know how the handbag arrived at said spot, it may not have been lost.
Without condoning this, surely driving at 7-8 mph over the limit needs to be put into perspectve, certainly in the context of what we are discussing.
Lincs said he was driving 12mph over the limit. 42 in a 30 zone. You've seen that ad where the kid gets knocked over at 40 and dies and then gets knocked over at 30 and survives, right? That's why Lincs deserved a fine.
there is a difference between driving 'too fast' on a congested urban compared to a quiet rural road .. I wrote that there was not another car nor person in sight .. the road in question where I was nicked has a broad footpath in front of wheat fields on one side and large houses with long driveways on the other .. YES, I 'broke the law' .. BUT, the fine would have been the same had I been speeding on a road which fits your description, one with (e.g.) children running around .. this is where the law is out of touch with reality... no leeway for circumstances .. 'speeding' is pretty much a strict liability law and needs an expensive lawyer and a compliant court to ensure a 'not guilty' verdict .. M'luds .. I rest my case ((:>) and I'll pay the hundred .. real problem is the insurance, I'll declare the 3 points and pay a higher premium for a few years to come .. the lawyers call that double jeapordy
EDIT and last last word .. the road where I was caught is long and straight with a purpose built chicane to deter speeding motor cyclists who used to plague the area .. the limit is 30 mph just through this chicane. either side, the limit is 50 mph
I take your point Lincs. Yes, circumstances are never so cut and dry. But at the end of the day, you clearly know this road and the limits, yet you sped anyway. Sounds like the only person you should be annoyed with is you.
agreed + the bastard or camera who caught me ((:>)
Blaming the police because they don't take lost property anymore isn't fair. This is completely the government's fault. Kent for example are having to make savings over the next 4 years of 40 million pounds. Where do you save that kind of money, when everything is already stretched to the bare bones, where a team of 10 officers are having to run around answering over 40 calls across gravesend and Dartford at any one time? Unfortunately with those budget cuts paying someone to sit at a front desk and log lost property isn't much of a priority.
Blaming the police because they don't take lost property anymore isn't fair. This is completely the government's fault. Kent for example are having to make savings over the next 4 years of 40 million pounds. Where do you save that kind of money, when everything is already stretched to the bare bones, where a team of 10 officers are having to run around answering over 40 calls across gravesend and Dartford at any one time? Unfortunately with those budget cuts paying someone to sit at a front desk and log lost property isn't much of a priority.
Would generally agree but in this instance we are considering probable evidence of a crime, not just a piece of lost property. As said above, if they made better use of the IT systems this could probably be better dealt with, butt that would also need investment.
Blaming the police because they don't take lost property anymore isn't fair. This is completely the government's fault. Kent for example are having to make savings over the next 4 years of 40 million pounds. Where do you save that kind of money, when everything is already stretched to the bare bones, where a team of 10 officers are having to run around answering over 40 calls across gravesend and Dartford at any one time? Unfortunately with those budget cuts paying someone to sit at a front desk and log lost property isn't much of a priority.
Also early this year they had a lot of officers working around the clock on the Companies House fraud, they still have men working on it now
Thank you for dialling 999...please press one for murder..two for rape..three for violent assault...
Your call is important to us which is why we are extending it for two hours.
Listen to Dido or Vivaldi's Four Seasons while we engage with our stakeholders and look about six years old.
I was on 'hold' to a Canadian (WestJet) call centre recently. In between the dire 'Lift Music', they chucked in a couple of jokes. One that particularly 'tickled my fancy' was:
'What do you call a dog magician?'...................................................................... .................................................................................................................................. 'A Labracadabrador'
Brilliant!! Made me laugh anyway but really easily pleased!! CAFC!
The 20mph blanket introduction in Lewisham is leading to trouble at the moment. A driver overtaking two of us at speed uphill just outside the Hither Green driving test centre (Ennersdale Road) was especially ironic. There has been a hell of a lot of tailgating frustration on Burnt Ash Lane/Road between Grove Park and Lee, as well as Manor Lane and elsewhere. I suppose the solution is everyone gets up a bit earlier.
Years ago (the late 60's when Dixon of Dock Green was our local copper), I found a purse in a phone box. It had a small amount of cash in it, and a bingo club membership card for the bingo hall at the old Gaumont. So I took it to Eltham Police Station and pointed out the bingo club card so it shouldn't be too difficult for them to re-unite the purse with its owner. Three months later I got a letter from them saying that it hadn't been claimed so it was mine.
More recently, in Woburn, I found a purse with £120 in it (I'm lucky like that). Didn't bother with the old bill this time. The purse had a debit card in it so I phoned the bank who asked if I would send it to them and they would contact the owner. They would not give me the lady's contact details, understandably, but I heard back from them later that the owner was pleasantly surprised to get her cash back.
The 20mph blanket introduction in Lewisham is leading to trouble at the moment. A driver overtaking two of us at speed uphill just outside the Hither Green driving test centre (Ennersdale Road) was especially ironic. There has been a hell of a lot of tailgating frustration on Burnt Ash Lane/Road between Grove Park and Lee, as well as Manor Lane and elsewhere. I suppose the solution is everyone gets up a bit earlier.
The sooner we don't control cars the better. Journeys will be timed/ planned better and we won't be able to act like maniacs in machinery. Hopefully stuff like that will seem unbelievable to future generations.
Re. Getting fined, there's good reason to cap speeds, so we know the deal. Most the time you can get away with pushing it, but sometimes you'll get caught out. That's the deal. You can't renege on the deal.
Hi, posting here without reading and just on the off chance. I and select group of close internet friends like to meet and cross dress and hang around Gilberts Pit (something about the name just tickles us...). Anyway, I digress. I lost my favorite hand bag a few days ago and wondered if anyone had found it? I hope I am not too late and it has not been handed into the Police, as it had my favorite pair of furry pink handcuffs and a selection of spare underwear, embarrassing as my name and address are sewn into them. Please PM me if you can help. I do hope my wife and young family do not find out! Soap.
The 20mph blanket introduction in Lewisham is leading to trouble at the moment. A driver overtaking two of us at speed uphill just outside the Hither Green driving test centre (Ennersdale Road) was especially ironic. There has been a hell of a lot of tailgating frustration on Burnt Ash Lane/Road between Grove Park and Lee, as well as Manor Lane and elsewhere. I suppose the solution is everyone gets up a bit earlier.
The sooner we don't control cars the better. Journeys will be timed/ planned better and we won't be able to act like maniacs in machinery. Hopefully stuff like that will seem unbelievable to future generations.
Re. Getting fined, there's good reason to cap speeds, so we know the deal. Most the time you can get away with pushing it, but sometimes you'll get caught out. That's the deal. You can't renege on the deal.
You're spot on.
People very rarely argue that they wern't speeding when they get done. It's always "it was only 32 in a 20 zone and weather conditions were perfect and I knew there were no children for 16 miles" , rather than " but I was doing bang on 20".
It's the getting caught bit people don't like, when they know they've done it many many times that day before with no comeback - and " everyone does it". It's bad luck if you get caught, but you can normally have no real argument about it.
If a car automatically told the old bill when you've gone over the limit and fines were automatic then speeding - and probably speeding fines - would drop overnight.
The technology for this is already being developed and some insurers operate a similar system that monitors driving actions and style and calculates premiums accordingly.
The 20mph blanket introduction in Lewisham is leading to trouble at the moment. A driver overtaking two of us at speed uphill just outside the Hither Green driving test centre (Ennersdale Road) was especially ironic. There has been a hell of a lot of tailgating frustration on Burnt Ash Lane/Road between Grove Park and Lee, as well as Manor Lane and elsewhere. I suppose the solution is everyone gets up a bit earlier.
The sooner we don't control cars the better. Journeys will be timed/ planned better and we won't be able to act like maniacs in machinery. Hopefully stuff like that will seem unbelievable to future generations.
Re. Getting fined, there's good reason to cap speeds, so we know the deal. Most the time you can get away with pushing it, but sometimes you'll get caught out. That's the deal. You can't renege on the deal.
You're spot on.
People very rarely argue that they wern't speeding when they get done. It's always "it was only 32 in a 20 zone and weather conditions were perfect and I knew there were no children for 16 miles" , rather than " but I was doing bang on 20".
It's the getting caught bit people don't like, when they know they've done it many many times that day before with no comeback - and " everyone does it". It's bad luck if you get caught, but you can normally have no real argument about it.
If a car automatically told the old bill when you've gone over the limit and fines were automatic then speeding - and probably speeding fines - would drop overnight.
The technology for this is already being developed and some insurers operate a similar system that monitors driving actions and style and calculates premiums accordingly.
This can't and won't work. At present most police forces (but not all) follow the guidance for fines. This is the speed limit plus 10% plus 2. So for example in a thirty zone, the minimum speed for a ticket is 35mph. Yiu are unlikely to face actual prosecution for less than 50mph.
The 10% is there to accommodate driver focus and concentration. It is much safer to have drivers looking at the road rather than their eyes being glued to their speedo. The 2mph bit is to accommodate speedo misreading. Despite what many think these are quite inaccurate. That can be for all sorts of reasons. Not the least of which is tyre wear.
The other issue is that many speed limits are entirely arbitrary and are for political anti-car reasons rather than safety. There is little common sense in play.
Excessive (and that may not be actually breaking the limit if weather or road conditios dictate) speed is only a factor in around 7% of accidents. Whereas not looking or looking but not seeing accounts for 16%.
So, back to cars that drive themselves. The speedo will still be inaccurate. But a car could be programmed to drive at a speed approximate to the speed limit. What concerns me is what happens when every car has satnav and drives itself when there is say a breakdown blocking the M25. Will every single vehicle take the same detour? Will that alternative road be able to take the strain? Will the resulting chaos be worse than staying on the original road? Once the original road is empty of traffic will every vehicle be directed back on to the original route and recreate the original chaos?
Couldn't help adding that speed limits are also helpful to improve "conditions" for local residents. My own road was never intended for through traffic and used to be the sort of street where children played football and generally "hang out". But now motorists claim it is safe to drive along at 40 mph.
They are right - we don't have any accidents - but that is because everyone stays inside!
Perhaps this could be another consequence of driverless cars. People in quiet residential areas may become even more pissed off when an algorithm decides to use their road as a rat run?
Whilst the NHS is quite rightly stealing the headlines for what Junior Doctors are going through at the moment - I actually think that the police (particularly the Met) are in more trouble as a public institution - this lost property issue being just one symptom of it.
Morale in the MPS is shot to bits for a multitude of reasons (but largely due to pay, pensions and working arrangements) and they're meeting funding gaps by selling police property/stations in the short term. I don't know what direction things are going to go, purely speculation, but I wouldn't rule out a privatization of some parts once the police service is fully run into the ground. G4S are already running prisons for the government.
Couldn't help adding that speed limits are also helpful to improve "conditions" for local residents. My own road was never intended for through traffic and used to be the sort of street where children played football and generally "hang out". But now motorists claim it is safe to drive along at 40 mph.
They are right - we don't have any accidents - but that is because everyone stays inside!
Perhaps this could be another consequence of driverless cars. People in quiet residential areas may become even more pissed off when an algorithm decides to use their road as a rat run?
Alternatively it could work in an opposite way whereby cars are programmed not to use quiet suburban roads as a way to skip congestion that may occur on main roads.
After all, a computer is less likely to cheat the system than a person.
The 20mph blanket introduction in Lewisham is leading to trouble at the moment. A driver overtaking two of us at speed uphill just outside the Hither Green driving test centre (Ennersdale Road) was especially ironic. There has been a hell of a lot of tailgating frustration on Burnt Ash Lane/Road between Grove Park and Lee, as well as Manor Lane and elsewhere. I suppose the solution is everyone gets up a bit earlier.
The sooner we don't control cars the better. Journeys will be timed/ planned better and we won't be able to act like maniacs in machinery. Hopefully stuff like that will seem unbelievable to future generations.
Re. Getting fined, there's good reason to cap speeds, so we know the deal. Most the time you can get away with pushing it, but sometimes you'll get caught out. That's the deal. You can't renege on the deal.
You're spot on.
People very rarely argue that they wern't speeding when they get done. It's always "it was only 32 in a 20 zone and weather conditions were perfect and I knew there were no children for 16 miles" , rather than " but I was doing bang on 20".
It's the getting caught bit people don't like, when they know they've done it many many times that day before with no comeback - and " everyone does it". It's bad luck if you get caught, but you can normally have no real argument about it.
If a car automatically told the old bill when you've gone over the limit and fines were automatic then speeding - and probably speeding fines - would drop overnight.
The technology for this is already being developed and some insurers operate a similar system that monitors driving actions and style and calculates premiums accordingly.
This can't and won't work. At present most police forces (but not all) follow the guidance for fines. This is the speed limit plus 10% plus 2. So for example in a thirty zone, the minimum speed for a ticket is 35mph. Yiu are unlikely to face actual prosecution for less than 50mph.
The 10% is there to accommodate driver focus and concentration. It is much safer to have drivers looking at the road rather than their eyes being glued to their speedo. The 2mph bit is to accommodate speedo misreading. Despite what many think these are quite inaccurate. That can be for all sorts of reasons. Not the least of which is tyre wear.
The other issue is that many speed limits are entirely arbitrary and are for political anti-car reasons rather than safety. There is little common sense in play.
Excessive (and that may not be actually breaking the limit if weather or road conditios dictate) speed is only a factor in around 7% of accidents. Whereas not looking or looking but not seeing accounts for 16%.
So, back to cars that drive themselves. The speedo will still be inaccurate. But a car could be programmed to drive at a speed approximate to the speed limit. What concerns me is what happens when every car has satnav and drives itself when there is say a breakdown blocking the M25. Will every single vehicle take the same detour? Will that alternative road be able to take the strain? Will the resulting chaos be worse than staying on the original road? Once the original road is empty of traffic will every vehicle be directed back on to the original route and recreate the original chaos?
Excellent post, very interesting. Specifically the stats about speed vs not looking.
A good mate has recently wrote off his motorbike, dislocated his shoulder and burnt his leg quite badly. Fortunately this is quite lightly, as original he was taken via ambulance to A&E with a suspected neck injury.
The incident involved someone pulling out to turn into a driveway without looking. The chap admitted it at the scene, both to my mate and the attending police officers.
My mates words when he was released from hospital were "if I'd have been going at the actual speed limit I would've been very broken". So neither party were going at speed; it was literally a concentration lapse on behalf of the other driver.
I wondered then how big an issue speed was in comparison to basic concentration. Interesting to see that lacking care and attention accounts for double the accidents!
Out of interest though, are collisions with pedestrians included in those stats? I would've thought that hitting pedestrians would've accounted for a fair chunk of speeding related incidents.
Couldn't help adding that speed limits are also helpful to improve "conditions" for local residents. My own road was never intended for through traffic and used to be the sort of street where children played football and generally "hang out". But now motorists claim it is safe to drive along at 40 mph.
They are right - we don't have any accidents - but that is because everyone stays inside!
Perhaps this could be another consequence of driverless cars. People in quiet residential areas may become even more pissed off when an algorithm decides to use their road as a rat run?
Alternatively it could work in an opposite way whereby cars are programmed not to use quiet suburban roads as a way to skip congestion that may occur on main roads.
After all, a computer is less likely to cheat the system than a person.
Good luck marketing a device that guarantees to take you the slowest possible route.
The 20mph blanket introduction in Lewisham is leading to trouble at the moment. A driver overtaking two of us at speed uphill just outside the Hither Green driving test centre (Ennersdale Road) was especially ironic. There has been a hell of a lot of tailgating frustration on Burnt Ash Lane/Road between Grove Park and Lee, as well as Manor Lane and elsewhere. I suppose the solution is everyone gets up a bit earlier.
The sooner we don't control cars the better. Journeys will be timed/ planned better and we won't be able to act like maniacs in machinery. Hopefully stuff like that will seem unbelievable to future generations.
Re. Getting fined, there's good reason to cap speeds, so we know the deal. Most the time you can get away with pushing it, but sometimes you'll get caught out. That's the deal. You can't renege on the deal.
You're spot on.
People very rarely argue that they wern't speeding when they get done. It's always "it was only 32 in a 20 zone and weather conditions were perfect and I knew there were no children for 16 miles" , rather than " but I was doing bang on 20".
It's the getting caught bit people don't like, when they know they've done it many many times that day before with no comeback - and " everyone does it". It's bad luck if you get caught, but you can normally have no real argument about it.
If a car automatically told the old bill when you've gone over the limit and fines were automatic then speeding - and probably speeding fines - would drop overnight.
The technology for this is already being developed and some insurers operate a similar system that monitors driving actions and style and calculates premiums accordingly.
This can't and won't work. At present most police forces (but not all) follow the guidance for fines. This is the speed limit plus 10% plus 2. So for example in a thirty zone, the minimum speed for a ticket is 35mph. Yiu are unlikely to face actual prosecution for less than 50mph.
The 10% is there to accommodate driver focus and concentration. It is much safer to have drivers looking at the road rather than their eyes being glued to their speedo. The 2mph bit is to accommodate speedo misreading. Despite what many think these are quite inaccurate. That can be for all sorts of reasons. Not the least of which is tyre wear.
The other issue is that many speed limits are entirely arbitrary and are for political anti-car reasons rather than safety. There is little common sense in play.
Excessive (and that may not be actually breaking the limit if weather or road conditios dictate) speed is only a factor in around 7% of accidents. Whereas not looking or looking but not seeing accounts for 16%.
So, back to cars that drive themselves. The speedo will still be inaccurate. But a car could be programmed to drive at a speed approximate to the speed limit. What concerns me is what happens when every car has satnav and drives itself when there is say a breakdown blocking the M25. Will every single vehicle take the same detour? Will that alternative road be able to take the strain? Will the resulting chaos be worse than staying on the original road? Once the original road is empty of traffic will every vehicle be directed back on to the original route and recreate the original chaos?
Excellent post, very interesting. Specifically the stats about speed vs not looking.
A good mate has recently wrote off his motorbike, dislocated his shoulder and burnt his leg quite badly. Fortunately this is quite lightly, as original he was taken via ambulance to A&E with a suspected neck injury.
The incident involved someone pulling out to turn into a driveway without looking. The chap admitted it at the scene, both to my mate and the attending police officers.
My mates words when he was released from hospital were "if I'd have been going at the actual speed limit I would've been very broken". So neither party were going at speed; it was literally a concentration lapse on behalf of the other driver.
I wondered then how big an issue speed was in comparison to basic concentration. Interesting to see that lacking care and attention accounts for double the accidents!
Out of interest though, are collisions with pedestrians included in those stats? I would've thought that hitting pedestrians would've accounted for a fair chunk of speeding related incidents.
Yes. There are remarkably excellent "killed or seriously injured" statistics. While in no way belittling any death, the UK road accident figures themselves are remarkable considering the traffic densities. There used to be a fairly constant 3000 + deaths per year in total. That's down to 1700 now. Of that total 409 are pedestrians with another 4940 seriously injured. There are a huge number of factors which have an impact on the figures including increases in GDP. ( More wealth means more travelling.) But vehicle design takes a lot of credit for the decrease. It is however of note that a staggering 25% of pedestrian casulties happen between 4pm and 7pm. Child deaths are a tiny 3% of the total. Perhaps not surprising as they don't drive. But it is alarming that of the 16101 injuries (both serious and minor) to children, 39% are pedestrians and 29% occurred between 3 and 5pm. I can't find it at present but somebody did some work on the impact of keeping BST in the winter months and it would keep a significant number of children (and adults) alive. But it seems it's more important to appease Scottish farmers and blame people marginally exceeding the speed limit rather than do something simple to save lives.
my apologies for turning a post about lack of services offered by Old Bill into a series of discussions on the subject of speeding and associated statistics ... In this area, Humberside, the vast majority of scene of crimes officers and admin support staff have been laid off .. the new Crime Commissioner (or whatever he is called) has promised 40 to 50 more officers on the beat, of that number 30 or so will be CPSOs, not 'the real thing' but at least a presence on the streets and in the smaller villages.
Comments
I'd like to think that no-one who has had a child run over, or knows one who has been doesn't see your, frankly, pathetic comment.
But at the end of the day, you clearly know this road and the limits, yet you sped anyway. Sounds like the only person you should be annoyed with is you.
So I'm told.
'What do you call a dog magician?'...................................................................... .................................................................................................................................. 'A Labracadabrador'
Brilliant!! Made me laugh anyway but really easily pleased!! CAFC!
There has been a hell of a lot of tailgating frustration on Burnt Ash Lane/Road between Grove Park and Lee, as well as Manor Lane and elsewhere.
I suppose the solution is everyone gets up a bit earlier.
More recently, in Woburn, I found a purse with £120 in it (I'm lucky like that). Didn't bother with the old bill this time. The purse had a debit card in it so I phoned the bank who asked if I would send it to them and they would contact the owner. They would not give me the lady's contact details, understandably, but I heard back from them later that the owner was pleasantly surprised to get her cash back.
She doesn't want it back.
Re. Getting fined, there's good reason to cap speeds, so we know the deal. Most the time you can get away with pushing it, but sometimes you'll get caught out. That's the deal. You can't renege on the deal.
People very rarely argue that they wern't speeding when they get done. It's always "it was only 32 in a 20 zone and weather conditions were perfect and I knew there were no children for 16 miles" , rather than " but I was doing bang on 20".
It's the getting caught bit people don't like, when they know they've done it many many times that day before with no comeback - and " everyone does it". It's bad luck if you get caught, but you can normally have no real argument about it.
If a car automatically told the old bill when you've gone over the limit and fines were automatic then speeding - and probably speeding fines - would drop overnight.
The technology for this is already being developed and some insurers operate a similar system that monitors driving actions and style and calculates premiums accordingly.
The 10% is there to accommodate driver focus and concentration. It is much safer to have drivers looking at the road rather than their eyes being glued to their speedo. The 2mph bit is to accommodate speedo misreading.
Despite what many think these are quite inaccurate. That can be for all sorts of reasons. Not the least of which is tyre wear.
The other issue is that many speed limits are entirely arbitrary and are for political anti-car reasons rather than safety. There is little common sense in play.
Excessive (and that may not be actually breaking the limit if weather or road conditios dictate) speed is only a factor in around 7% of accidents. Whereas not looking or looking but not seeing accounts for 16%.
So, back to cars that drive themselves. The speedo will still be inaccurate. But a car could be programmed to drive at a speed approximate to the speed limit.
What concerns me is what happens when every car has satnav and drives itself when there is say a breakdown blocking the M25. Will every single vehicle take the same detour? Will that alternative road be able to take the strain? Will the resulting chaos be worse than staying on the original road? Once the original road is empty of traffic will every vehicle be directed back on to the original route and recreate the original chaos?
They are right - we don't have any accidents - but that is because everyone stays inside!
Perhaps this could be another consequence of driverless cars. People in quiet residential areas may become even more pissed off when an algorithm decides to use their road as a rat run?
Morale in the MPS is shot to bits for a multitude of reasons (but largely due to pay, pensions and working arrangements) and they're meeting funding gaps by selling police property/stations in the short term. I don't know what direction things are going to go, purely speculation, but I wouldn't rule out a privatization of some parts once the police service is fully run into the ground. G4S are already running prisons for the government.
After all, a computer is less likely to cheat the system than a person.
A good mate has recently wrote off his motorbike, dislocated his shoulder and burnt his leg quite badly. Fortunately this is quite lightly, as original he was taken via ambulance to A&E with a suspected neck injury.
The incident involved someone pulling out to turn into a driveway without looking. The chap admitted it at the scene, both to my mate and the attending police officers.
My mates words when he was released from hospital were "if I'd have been going at the actual speed limit I would've been very broken". So neither party were going at speed; it was literally a concentration lapse on behalf of the other driver.
I wondered then how big an issue speed was in comparison to basic concentration. Interesting to see that lacking care and attention accounts for double the accidents!
Out of interest though, are collisions with pedestrians included in those stats? I would've thought that hitting pedestrians would've accounted for a fair chunk of speeding related incidents.
There used to be a fairly constant 3000 + deaths per year in total. That's down to 1700 now. Of that total 409 are pedestrians with another 4940 seriously injured.
There are a huge number of factors which have an impact on the figures including increases in GDP. ( More wealth means more travelling.) But vehicle design takes a lot of credit for the decrease.
It is however of note that a staggering 25% of pedestrian casulties happen between 4pm and 7pm.
Child deaths are a tiny 3% of the total. Perhaps not surprising as they don't drive. But it is alarming that of the 16101 injuries (both serious and minor) to children, 39% are pedestrians and 29% occurred between 3 and 5pm. I can't find it at present but somebody did some work on the impact of keeping BST in the winter months and it would keep a significant number of children (and adults) alive. But it seems it's more important to appease Scottish farmers and blame people marginally exceeding the speed limit rather than do something simple to save lives.