Speeding and general dangerous driving in and around Brixton

[T & P]

There is a direct connection between lax enforcement, and people getting killed. That stands whatever the specifics of this case or others.

Every single day I see people speeding, and in every single one of those cases there is potential for someone to get killed.

I frequently see crashes at a junction a few steps from my front door. In several cases these have involved cars mounting the pavement. And each time I see these I know that someone could easily have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. And when I see that cast iron bollards concreted into the pavement are taken out, maybe you can understand where my imagination goes.

You’re still widely speculating and ignoring some very plausible facts. The pedestrian could have been hit by a joyrider in a stolen car who of course will always ignore the motoring laws altogether regardless of how strict they are and how strictly they are enforced. There could have beeo other circumstances that would have exonerated the driver of any wrongdoing, or failed to prevent the fatality if the driver had been travelling below 20 mph.

We simply don’t know at this stage, and trying to assert blame at this stage without knowing all the facts seems rather wrong to me. But each to their own.

 

[mauvais]

There is a direct connection between lax enforcement, and people getting killed. That stands whatever the specifics of this case or others.

Unless you believe the only factor stopping people taking to the roads to enact a literal Death Race 2000 is the possibility of being done by road traffic police, that would inevitably be an indirect connection, if one indeed exists.

 

[snowy_again]

A week old:

 

[teuchter]

A week old:

Herne Hill Rd is one of the roads I where I routinely observe exactly this kind of driving, going on all the time, day and night. What's in that video is not exceptional.

 

[Gramsci]

Cycling home tonight through Elephant & Castle in the cycle lane. Which is clearly marked. It was rush hour. Lots of cyclists in front of me and behind. Van next to me suddenly pulls across to turn left. No signal. He was busy chatting to his mate in van and clearly wasn't concentrating.

As an experienced cyclist I was aware of this Muppet.

When I said to him you have just almost knocked me off he got aggressive. Helped he had his mate with him.

I deal with this shit all fucking day.

I keep my cool despite temperature.

All the complaining about cyclists totally pisses me off.

Due to improved cycle lanes many more people are taking the socially caring green alternative.

Yet lot of posts on this forum lead to "whataboutery".

People who cycle in London are doing a good thing. Reducing pollution, reducing pressure on public transport, reducing pressure on road use.

The car lobby who come on this thread are tossers imo.

 

[teuchter]

The Stockwell incident:

CCTV shows horrifying moments after woman killed in '90mph' hit-and-run

Shocked witnesses said the blue Mercedes C-Class was travelling at up to 90mph in a 30mph zone and tossed the victim 20 feet in the air.

I'm going to say it again - there is a direct connection between lax enforcement, where seemingly no effort whatsoever is made to enforce the 20mph limit - and a culture of driver behaviour that makes stuff like this more likely to happen.

Someone will try to argue that this extreme behaviour is outside of the realm of what the enforcement of 20 and 30mph limits affects. But I absolutely do not agree. It starts with it being acceptable to harass people for driving at the speed limit, because the limit is not enforced. And then people find that there's little that's likely to happen if you drive around at 50 or so at night or even in the day because it's become completely widespread. And that becomes normalised and then you get people going at 80 or 90 and not even stopping when they kill someone. I expect the driver of that car had the same reasoning as those who drive at 50 - it's an empty road, it's 4am, there's hardly anyone around. I'm a skilled driver and I can react. I've made my own judgement of the risk. Screw the speed-limit Nazis. And then someone's dead.

 

[bimble]

Met police hunt 'stolen car' driver who nearly crashed into cyclists

 

[teuchter]

Met police hunt 'stolen car' driver who nearly crashed into cyclists

Equivalent to threatening people with a knife or a gun in my opinion; I wonder what he'll be charged with if they find him.

 

[mauvais]

The Stockwell incident:

CCTV shows horrifying moments after woman killed in '90mph' hit-and-run

I'm going to say it again - there is a direct connection between lax enforcement, where seemingly no effort whatsoever is made to enforce the 20mph limit - and a culture of driver behaviour that makes stuff like this more likely to happen.

Someone will try to argue that this extreme behaviour is outside of the realm of what the enforcement of 20 and 30mph limits affects. But I absolutely do not agree. It starts with it being acceptable to harass people for driving at the speed limit, because the limit is not enforced. And then people find that there's little that's likely to happen if you drive around at 50 or so at night or even in the day because it's become completely widespread. And that becomes normalised and then you get people going at 80 or 90 and not even stopping when they kill someone. I expect the driver of that car had the same reasoning as those who drive at 50 - it's an empty road, it's 4am, there's hardly anyone around. I'm a skilled driver and I can react. I've made my own judgement of the risk. Screw the speed-limit Nazis. And then someone's dead.

Nothing about this is either normal or normalised. It's sociopathy. A total lack of enforcement wouldn't produce this or anything like this as the norm, especially in the longer term. Additionally, there's never been such a higher level of enforcement that would have deterred it - that is, your chances of getting caught may or may not be lower now, but they have never been sufficiently high to really put people off doing it if they so desired. But normal people don't.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Nothing about this is either normal or normalised. It's sociopathy. A total lack of enforcement wouldn't produce this or anything like this as the norm, especially in the longer term. Additionally, there's never been such a higher level of enforcement that would have deterred it - that is, your chances of getting caught may or may not be lower now, but they have never been sufficiently high to really put people off doing it if they so desired. But normal people don't.

The point is breaking the speed limit is the norm and it's not policed. I've been on the motorway when there's been nobody under the speed limit.

 

[mauvais]

The point is breaking the speed limit is the norm and it's not policed.

I know that's the intended point. But even in the absence of any rules at all, the vast majority of people would regress to something that felt vaguely comfortable. Noone who would drive at double or triple the sensible speed for the conditions, or manifestly beyond their ability to control the car (and yes, it is obvious, not merely masked by delusion) is being held back by speed limits, by average people's behaviour or by the threat of punishment - with the possible exception of knowing that, in the worst case of being caught, sentencing is lenient. The two things are wholly separate, like you knowing you can probably get away with serious crime versus actually going round committing it.

And by the way, I'm not trying to say that a lack of enforcement is a good thing - I'd love to see more road policing. I hate these people with a passion. I'm just trying to tell you that it's a problem far beyond the conventional relationships between drivers and road traffic law. It's well into anti-social behaviour or worse.

 

[Gramsci]

Edit

 

[Gramsci]

I know that's the intended point. But even in the absence of any rules at all, the vast majority of people would regress to something that felt vaguely comfortable. Noone who would drive at double or triple the sensible speed for the conditions, or manifestly beyond their ability to control the car (and yes, it is obvious, not merely masked by delusion) is being held back by speed limits, by average people's behaviour or by the threat of punishment - with the possible exception of knowing that, in the worst case of being caught, sentencing is lenient. The two things are wholly separate, like you knowing you can probably get away with serious crime versus actually going round committing it.

And by the way, I'm not trying to say that a lack of enforcement is a good thing - I'd love to see more road policing. I hate these people with a passion. I'm just trying to tell you that it's a problem far beyond the conventional relationships between drivers and road traffic law. It's well into anti-social behaviour or worse.

This doesn't make sense.

 

[Gramsci]

I know that's the intended point. But even in the absence of any rules at all, the vast majority of people would regress to something that felt vaguely comfortable. Noone who would drive at double or triple the sensible speed for the conditions, or manifestly beyond their ability to control the car[/b] (and yes, it is obvious, not merely masked by delusion) is being held back by speed limits, by average people's behaviour or by the threat of punishment - with the possible exception of knowing that, in the worst case of being caught, sentencing is lenient.

But you have just seen posted above examples of speeding.

Ru in London?

I live on Coldharbour lane/ Loughborough Junction. I regularly see speeding.

Ru saying 20mph should be scrapped?

 

[mauvais]

But you have just seen posted above examples of speeding.

Ru in London?

I live on Coldharbour lane/ Loughborough Junction. I regularly see speeding.

Ru saying 20mph should be scrapped?

How does any of this follow on from anything I wrote?

 

[bimble]

I think mauvais is right, about the extreme cases. Some people murder random strangers even though enforcement against that behaviour is quite strict. The total number of speeding related deaths and injuries would definitely go down though if enforcement was taken seriously. Don't see any contradiction in both things being true.
Driving around the area has made me revise significantly upwards my idea of what percentage of people are sociopaths though.

 

[alex_]

I think mauvais is right, about the extreme cases. Some people murder random strangers even though enforcement against that behaviour is quite strict.

This is pretty rare, more than 80% known their victim.

Homicide in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

 

[bimble]

This is pretty rare, more than 80% known their victim.

Homicide in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Yes, I know. My example was a bit rubbish.

 

[alex_]

I think mauvais is right, about the extreme cases. Some people murder random strangers even though enforcement against that behaviour is quite strict. The total number of speeding related deaths and injuries would definitely go down though if enforcement was taken seriously. Don't see any contradiction in both things being true.
Driving around the area has made me revise significantly upwards my idea of what percentage of people are sociopaths though.

What’s depressing about this is that more speed cameras and a lot more average speed cameras would completely fix this problem.

A thousand companies would do this for free with appropriate revenue share.

So this is a problem which is completely solveable with existing technology, and could be done for zero cost to the taxpayer and probably make some cash too.

But this apparently impinges on motorists liberties to break the law....

Alex

 

[mauvais]

But this apparently impinges on motorists liberties to break the law....

Alex

What does this actually mean? Who or what is preventing installation of more cameras?

Take an easier example, red light cameras, because there's less general objection to these. Why don't we have one on every set of lights, perhaps PFI'd as you suggest?

Is it perhaps because of economics, like return on investment, rather than some imaginary lobby?

 

[Winot]

What does this actually mean? Who or what is preventing installation of more cameras?

Take an easier example, red light cameras, because there's less general objection to these. Why don't we have one on every set of lights, perhaps PFI'd as you suggest?

Is it perhaps because of economics, like return on investment, rather than some imaginary lobby?

Local authorities are restricted as to where they can install cameras iirc. Have to prove it’s a place where there is high KSI stats.

 

[mauvais]

Local authorities are restricted as to where they can install cameras iirc. Have to prove it’s a place where there is high KSI stats.

Yes, but this is DfT guidance/force policy, not law.

 

[Winot]

Yes, but this is DfT guidance/force policy, not law.

You asked why there aren’t more speed cameras. I gave you the answer. Essentially it’s politically unacceptable because of our pro-motorist culture.

 

[mauvais]

You asked why there aren’t more speed cameras. I gave you the answer. Essentially it’s politically unacceptable because of our pro-motorist culture.

That's not an answer as to how motorists' liberties prevent the deployment of cameras, it's a detail on how current policy works. The former could well lead to the latter but the evidence for that is lacking.

This is the 2007 guidance that heavily influences, but doesn't prescribe, current speed camera policy:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...chment_data/file/465165/dft-circular-0107.pdf

You can see how that translates into practice e.g. here (West Mids):

https://www.wmsafetycameras.co.uk/ajaxfilemanager/uploaded/File/wmprotocols01sep09.pdf

You could argue the approach is driven by political resistance to cameras or whatever, but I don't think that holds up very well; it's mostly budget restrictions and data-driven policy. One of the few brakes on whether you can install a camera is whether the police & Courts Service are willing to deal with the results.

 

[alex_]

What does this actually mean? Who or what is preventing installation of more cameras?

Right wing press

Eg The myths of average speed camera fines revealed - does changing lane REALLY work?

“This means you need to be paying attention all the time to avoid being caught out by the "yellow vultures"”

Pay attention all the time ?

Oh the humanity !

 

[teuchter]

You could argue the approach is driven by political resistance to cameras or whatever, but I don't think that holds up very well; it's mostly budget restrictions and data-driven policy. One of the few brakes on whether you can install a camera is whether the police & Courts Service are willing to deal with the results.

If speed camera fines don't cover the cost of dealing with the 'results' - increase the fines.

 

[bimble]

Ignore the tone of the articles, and these are not about speeding, but it appears lambeth is not that afraid of fining drivers for breaking the law.
London's bus lane blackspots revealed | This is Money
Drivers fined £7.3m by CCTV cars
Could also just be that we have London's worst drivers.

 

[alex_]

If speed camera fines don't cover the cost of dealing with the 'results' - increase the fines.

Considering that an augmented reality tape measure is included in the next version of iOS - I can’t see why the guts of a cheap speed camera would cost more than 500 quid.

Alex

 

[teuchter]

Noone who would drive at double or triple the sensible speed for the conditions, or manifestly beyond their ability to control the car (and yes, it is obvious, not merely masked by delusion) is being held back by speed limits, by average people's behaviour or by the threat of punishment -

You simply state this as if it's fact - I don't buy it at all.

 

[mauvais]

Considering that an augmented reality tape measure is included in the next version of iOS - I can’t see why the guts of a cheap speed camera would cost more than 500 quid.

Alex

Mostly because it needs to produce evidence that will stand up in court.