SPEEDING

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
 

When police caught driver David Clarke flying down a road at 180 kilometers per hour, he looked likely to lose his license. But District Court Judge Denis McLoughlin reduced the charge and let the 31-year-old information technology worker stay on the road after concluding the speed did not look 'as bad' when converted into miles. That's 112mph. McLoughlin suggested it was relatively safe to have shattered the legal road limit at the time, citing good weather, light traffic and the road's unusual straightness. McLoughlin was quoted as saying the speed seemed 'very excessive,' but did not look 'as bad' when converted into miles.

He lowered the charge from driving dangerously to driving carelessly, and fined him £692. If convicted of the tougher charge of driving dangerously, Clarke would have lost his license. Law enforcement on Ireland's roads is notoriously lax, and judges frequently acquit offending drivers because of loopholes and vagaries in the law. The government has been forced into an embarrassing U-turn over its plan to close the biggest loophole of all, a law that allows people to fail a first driving test but still receive a license and drive unsupervised. One in six Irish drivers has never passed an on-the-road test, according to Transport Department statistics. (Source: Metro, Nov/07)

A driver clocked by police doing nearly 150mph in his dad's Porsche escaped jail after a judge ruled that his speeding was not dangerous. Nicholas Whittle, driving with no insurance, sped past a patrol car doing more than double the 60mph limit while overtaking but Recorder Caroline Lister threw the case out, saying, "He went fast for a short time only on a straight road with excellent visibility. I have to rule whether speed alone can be the basis of a dangerous driving case. I reach the conclusion that it cannot." Speaking outside court, Whittle said, "I was really pleased with the outcome. It's been very stressful leading up to the case." (Source: Daily Mirror, Jan/06)

Speed limits are, in principal, a good idea. There is an argument that some speed limits are unnecessarily low given particular stretches of road, where there is no obvious increase in risk that an increase in speed would have, however, we will accept, for arguments sake, that all speed limits are there for a purpose and are set correctly. To enforce these speed limits; laws are passed making speeding an offence and signs are erected to indicate the maximum permissible speeds. This doesn't work because some drivers believe the speed limits are set too low for the particular road in question.

The police can't be everywhere to enforce the speed limits and so enforcement cameras are erected which do generally work; no one, who's got an ounce of common sense, will deliberately drive through a speed camera in order to be fined and penalised. So nearly everyone slows down for a speed camera. We finally have a solution to the speeding problem. Now, if we are to assume that speed cameras are the only way to make drivers slow down, and they work effectively, then we would expect there to be a great number of these everywhere and that they would be highly visible and identifiable to make drivers slow down, but no, that is not the case.

Speed cameras are invariably hidden behind trees, road signs, are a dull grey colour and, often, the first indication that one is passing through a speed camera point is the ruler marks painted on the carraigeway or the flash of the camera when it goes off. So why, if these cameras are there to make drivers slow down, are they so invisible when it is known that their presence works? The way speed cameras are currently used is not to make the drivers slow down, obey the speed limit and make the road safe but to catch and penalise transgressors who may otherwise have slowed down if they had seen the camera in advance.

So speed cameras do not help maintain or enforce road safety standards, only penalise transgressors. The attitude of the police and local authorities to the deployment of speed cameras is also a little strange. They argue that speed cameras are only used in places where there is a serious risk caused by speeding motorists. This makes it appear that they are saying that they accept that some speed limits are set lower than they should be, which drivers can and do exceed, but there are some which they'd really like us to keep to.

The police also have a strong, negative attitude to groups that publish details of where speed cameras are situated. If these groups make known where these speed cameras are and, as a consequence, drivers travel along these roads without speeding, then surely the goal of putting those cameras in place will have been achieved? The argument for hiding cameras usually goes along the lines that the speed limit is clearly stated, warnings that speed cameras are in place are also widespread and the driver should have obeyed these and the speed camera is purely for catching those who have refused to obey the instructions.

Yes, but we know speed limit signs don't work (or we wouldn't need these speed cameras anyway) and warnings of speed cameras are about as effective as the original speed limit signs. The public is also well aware that on rural roads the most likely place to find a speed camera is halfway down a perfectly straight dual carraigeway which has no junctions nearby and straight line visibility of over a mile where, it can often be reasonably argued, the actual speed limit is set lower than that which would actually be safe. Where speed cameras are used on motorways they are used to keep the traffic at a speed that keeps the flow moving smoothly rather than as a condemnation of speeding itself.

There is also an acceptance, judging from fly-on-the wall documentaries covering motorway patrol officers, that some speeding is acceptable and that the real problem is with excessive speed for the circumstances. This can cover travelling at speeds far lower than the speed limit under some conditions. This is the crux of the issue; it is not speed that is dangerous, it is using speed in the wrong circumstances. Enforcement cameras at traffic lights are generally a justifiable thing; they do catch transgressors who endanger the lives of other road users and pedestrians. Yes, they do generate revenue, but that can be clearly related to the act of transgression that is, as is obvious, a danger to others.

Speed cameras, as currently deployed, are not so justifiable. If these cameras were highly visible then no one would travel by them exceeding the speed limit and they would do their job. Used as they are, hidden away, they penalise only and contribute little to road safety directly - only generating revenue to pay for their installation and maintenance.

A city road's speed limit has been set at 40mph instead of 60mph for 30 years. Now thousands of drivers fined for "speeding" could win a refund. The 40mph signs will stay up as officials apply to make the lower limit legal. The AA said, "This sounds like a complete administrative cock-up and just the thing to bring speed enforcement into disrepute." Tory councillor Kate Mackenzie had appealed to extend a 200-yard 40mph zone on the busy Maybury Road in Edinburgh.

But officials found the limit should have been 60mph. Ms Mackenzie said, "The council admitted there was no order to cover the lower limit. Obviously they aren't going to take the signs down because that would make the problem worse." Lawyer Margaret Smillie said, "Drivers fined for speeding have been wrongly penalised. They should be reimbursed." Edinburgh Council blamed the error on failures in the 70s by now defunct Edinburgh Corporation. A spokeswoman said, "There may have been quite a few speeding convictions over the years."

Next >>>--