Speed enforcement system in the UK is unfair, Split from hijacked thread Options

[Richard_Z]

Nobody should trust the accuracy of these laser devices, especially after this episode:

https://youtu.be/LKySmZeT9NA

If there was no dash cam evidence, the driver would have been banned unfairly.

The problem is that the system in the UK is created in a way to induce fear to drivers "oh, don't go to court, the laser is always right" or "oh, the officer wouldn't make that figure up, the officer is always right".
I would say that most of the speed enforcement system in the UK is a cash cow. And I say that because I have a hot hatch (Audi S3) and I've never had a speeding ticket. One of my female colleagues drives a basic DS3 like miss daisy, she's been caught twice this year, one at 39 in a 30 dual carriage way (just ridiculous speed limit considering the road layout) and 45 on a 40 zone. Both with laser devices. On the first occasion she's told me that she doesn't even remember seeing a van, she hasn't even seen a photograph, she was so scared that she went to the SAC immediately without question.
On the second fine, she was absolutely gobsmacked, 3 points and £100.

I agree that speed limits should always be enforced however the enforcement must be reasonable, it should be limited to dangerous sections (e.g. X number of fatalities used as reference) of a certain road, or in critical areas such as schools, or areas with heavy presence of pedestrians etc. Why targeting for example the M6 toll at 3 am where you can drive safely at 100 MPH?

On this context, Germany is years away from any other country.

[Advertisement]

[notmeatloaf]

Re neck injuries. SOP
Spending time immobilising the neck significantly reduces the risk of damage when moving a patient, injuries may not be self evident.
So makes sense.
And reduces the risk of claims against medical teams.

The percentage of head injuries in car crashes is higher than cyclists, so by that logic car drivers should wear helmets too.

As it is the figure is pointless without saying how many injuries would be prevented/reduced by wearing a helmet, and the number of extra collisions that would be caused if everyone wore a helmet.

As it is if helmets had a speed rating on them, so I could choose one guaranteed to provide a level of protection, then I might consider it. But they don't, because they are effectively placebo protection and no manufacturer wants to actually certify any degree of protection.

[DancingDad]

Re neck injuries. SOP
Spending time immobilising the neck significantly reduces the risk of damage when moving a patient, injuries may not be self evident.
So makes sense.
And reduces the risk of claims against medical teams.

The percentage of head injuries in car crashes is higher than cyclists, so by that logic car drivers should wear helmets too.

Selective quoting re neck injuries then discuss head injuries ???

Anyway, I was kind enough to provide a link to my reference on cyclists' head injuries.
Please do the same with your assertion that there is a higher percentage in car crashes.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 11:33

[nigelbb]

Other than losing a few teeth your head is fairly robust and withstands most cycle-speed crashes albeit perhaps with dramatic cuts and bruises. If it's not being polystyrene the helmet will just crack anyway especially against anything sharp.

Helmets are designed to crack & collapse on impact that's how they protect the head inside by absorbing the energy.

[notmeatloaf]

Other than losing a few teeth your head is fairly robust and withstands most cycle-speed crashes albeit perhaps with dramatic cuts and bruises. If it's not being polystyrene the helmet will just crack anyway especially against anything sharp.

Helmets are designed to crack & collapse on impact that's how they protect the head inside by absorbing the energy.

They are designed to compress upon impact. It's that compression (like a crumple zone in a car) that absorbs the energy. That's why cycle helmets are made of polystyrene rather than a stronger material.

It takes very little energy to crack a helmet, and thus simple physics tells you that it does little to protect the head because it has absorbed very little energy.

[notmeatloaf]

Anyway, I was kind enough to provide a link to my reference on cyclists' head injuries.
Please do the same with your assertion that there is a higher percentage in car crashes.

I can't find the statistics because I'm eating jaffa cakes at the moment but hope this helps.



Anyway, despite many more people wearing cycle helmets than twenty years ago, and fewer people cycling, cycling injuries and deaths caused by head injuries have gone up too. So that would almost certainly suggest a more complex relationship along the lines that, as has been proved, drivers take more risks around cyclists wearing helmets. You may be more likely to survive an accident with a helmet but if you can avoid the accident in the first place you are still ahead.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 10:57

[Unzippy]

Speaking to the police one of the most common causes is someone pulling out from lane 1 to 3 to overtake a middle lane driver and getting smashed from behind.

Agreed, drivers need better education not to be pulling out without decent observation.

[Unzippy]

Or just undertake in lane 1 and let the middle lane moron get on with it.

[The Rookie]

Or just continue in lane 1 and let the middle lane moron get on with it.

FTFY

[notmeatloaf]

I now just undertake. Even with good observation there is a element of risk changing lanes.

I've noticed now on four one motorways there are drivers, usually older exec cars, who drive in lane 3 dead on 70mph on otherwise empty motorways. Not quite sure what the rationale is there.

[typefish]

I now just undertake. Even with good observation there is a element of risk changing lanes.

I've noticed now on four one motorways there are drivers, usually older exec cars, who drive in lane 3 dead on 70mph on otherwise empty motorways. Not quite sure what the rationale is there.

Don't you know? It's the middle lane, as lorries are in the slow lane, and in the slow lane.

[jdh]

I now just undertake. Even with good observation there is a element of risk changing lanes.

I've noticed now on four one motorways there are drivers, usually older exec cars, who drive in lane 3 dead on 70mph on otherwise empty motorways. Not quite sure what the rationale is there.

Seems to be the right hand most lane is 'the fast lane', the one left of that is 'the cruising lane', anything else is an extension of the slip roads (both on and off).

[Jlc]

Not quite sure what the rationale is there.

Indeed, many a time I've been in the far left lane @ 70mph (ish) and have had to swing all the way across 2 (or even 3 lanes) to overtake someone quite happily doing 65mph in lane 2/3. After then swinging all the way back to lane 1 they merrily carry on in their own little world. Oh, to have some blue flashing lights.

[cp8759]

Not quite sure what the rationale is there.

Indeed, many a time I've been in the far left lane @ 70mph (ish) and have had to swing all the way across 2 (or even 3 lanes) to overtake someone quite happily doing 65mph in lane 2/3. After then swinging all the way back to lane 1 they merrily carry on in their own little world. Oh, to have some blue flashing lights.

Many forces are recruiting at the moment

[typefish]

Yes, but for some reason I doubt they'd accept people within their ranks who are generally quite critical of them!

[Jlc]

Many forces are recruiting at the moment

They couldn't afford me, lol.

[cp8759]

Many forces are recruiting at the moment

They couldn't afford me, lol.

Then no blue lights for you.