Road Safety News
 

Hike in speeding fines imposed by magistrates

Monday 5th January 2015

The number of speeding fines imposed by magistrates during 2013 rose to its highest level since 2009 (BBC News).

Figures from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) show 115,549 motorists were issued with fines of at least £100 in 2013.

In South Wales the number of drivers fined in 2013 tripled to 6,491, from 2,181 three years earlier. And the number of fines grew over the same period by almost 1,000 in both South Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and by close to 2,000 in Staffordshire.

However, a spokeswoman for the DfT told BBC News that the MoJ figures “show the number of fines issued is in decline across many police force areas."

Edmund King, AA president, said the overall increase "is a reflection that (speed) cameras are more efficient than ever".

Mr King said: "In the past, cameras in London would only take valid pictures for a quarter of a day and it was pot luck whether you are fined. The cameras are now working 24 hours a day."

 

Comments

Comment on this story
Report a reader comment

What's your view - comment on this story:

I confirm that I have read and accept the moderation policy and house rules relating to comments posted on this website.
Your comment:
Your name and location:
Your email:

It doesn't matter how much you analyse the brain and its capabilities? Surely the brain and its capabilities are the key to understanding everything about the driving process and how it might occasionally fail? The speed at which people choose to travel is also entirely governed by the functions of the human brain so I would have thought that understanding the brain would be at the top of the list for those people that want to reduce 'speeding'.

For those of us that want to reduce accidents the ongoing study of the brain and how it works leads to greater insight to the reasons why people have accidents in the first place.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise - No accident.

Agree (7) | Disagree (2)
+5

Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees that speed could cause a collision, the fact is that the speed determines the time and distance for all the potential participants in a collision to think and take avoiding action. It determines the severity of the collision if it does take place. It determines the forces required at steering and braking levels for the avoiding intention to be converted into avoidance.

On top of this you can include setting a speed limit or rule by which all road users can expect others to follow and you have the considerable effects on noise, air quality, independent mobility within communities, community severance, etc.

And that is why a "Safe systems" approach treats the speed not only as a potential causal factor in lack of control but a major determinant of avoidance and consequence.

It doesn't matter how much you analyse the brain and its capabilities. The fact is that "speed matters". Those who deny this scientific and rational conclusion are doomed to be ignored by those who take road danger reduction seriously.
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (5) | Disagree (4)
+1

Nick:
Just a suggestion...as this thread has latterly moved away from the news item but, in my view has usefully started to focus on the hows and whys of accidents, perhaps it could be a subject on its own in the 'Opinion' section rather than on the back of a news item. Readers could dip in and out as they wish with thoughts and ideas.

Honor:
I was disappointed to read your understanding and explanation on speed limits coming from one so heavily involved in road safety - one or two common misconceptions and even misleading interpretaion I'm afraid. Posted speed limits do not represent an 'appropriate maximum speed' I'm afraid. Maximum permitted speed yes...appropriate?.. not always and often not even close. I do agree with your last para though.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (3) | Disagree (1)
+2

Honor:
This is not just about semantics. It's about what can cause an accident and what cannot - something surely at the root of Road Safety?

Only by understanding causes can means of prevention be developed. If you disagree with the analysis (based on hazardous conditions and triggering events), please explain why.
Speed limits may have been well researched etc in the past, but these days they are more influenced by local councillors, bereaved families, and pressure groups such as 20's Plenty and Brake. Their contribution to value in terms of road safety has consequently been undermined.

Finally, I reject your suggestion that by discussing the contribution of speed to accident incidence in a hazard analysis context implies "individuals setting their own rules". It's about identifying how best to target road safety effort.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Researcher, St Albans

Agree (6) | Disagree (6)
0

Can we get beyond this over-focus on the semantics of whether or not "speeding" causes or is a contributory factor in collisions?

Speed limits are set using a set of well researched, nationally agreed criteria, that take account of local features and likely usage. These indicate what the appropriate maximum speed on a road should be in order for the average driver and road user to be able to cope with the situations and events that are likely to occur on that road, taking into account the above.

Speed is a factor both of itself - other road users have an expectation of the approach speed of another vehicle that is based on the posted speed limit - and by setting a speed that will enable drivers and other road users to react and to avoid developing situations and events that are likely to occur on a road of this type/layout/usage.

It isn’t a perfect approach, but it is an objective framework and it is sensible to apply the same set of rules consistently throughout our road network to help our expectations and our ability to use and share the network safely wherever we drive. As with most communal human activity, there have to be some ground rules or conventions that are accepted by all those involved – we cannot have a safe shared transport system in which each individual can set their own rules regardless of others. Sharing the roads means accepting compromise for the overall benefit of all users.
Honor Byford, Chair, Road Safety GB

Agree (8) | Disagree (6)
+2

I presume we're all accident and incident free in our respective motoring careers, so would it not be more useful to simply analyse what we ourselves (or any reader) do when we're behind the wheel, or in the saddle, that others might not do (and vice versa) and which appears to work in keeping us accident free? It's not just luck.

Or - perish the thought - analyse an acident you've actually been in, witnessed or know of in detail and rewind slightly to see how it could have been avoided.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (3) | Disagree (0)
+3

Building on Eric's comments with respect to a hazardous condition and a trigger event, I'll put forward some ideas.

We can view a hazardous condition in the context of:

1. The driver
* tired
* drunk

2. vehicle
* bald tyre (can overlap with driver - did the driver see the bald tyre and decide to drive anyway?)
* manufacturing defect
* design issue

3. road
* poor state of repair
* poor design
* poor construction

4. weather
* fog
* ice & snow.

Let's look at trigger events in the context of:

1. driver
* misjudgement
* nodding off

2. vehicle
* tyre blow out
* random catastrophic failure of a critical component

3. road
* someone else have a go!

4. weather
* ditto!

Adding some ideas to Duncan's concise Human Brain 101

Brain 101 and a half! (Applied neural net development theory or making sure your head's screwed on right!)

* Neural plasticity, how can it best be moulded to reduce the surprise element and improve its ability to more accurately predict future movement sequences?

As Bob has pointed out, space is a great saviour. I've just had a thought, not the light bulb effect - more of a glow worm moment!

What about a new bit of mental software to add to IPSGA, OSM/PSL etc?

S.P.A.C.E

* Speed
* Position
* Anticipation
* Concentrate
* Execute

Could drivers and riders use this to help manage the space they occupy on the road?

Just a bit more food for thought - please feel free to criticise/modify/develop and improve.
Mark - Wiltshire

Agree (4) | Disagree (1)
+3

An accident cannot be 'caused' by travelling too fast for the conditions apertaining at the time Bob because that is something that can only be known from the outside and with hindsight. From the inside and with foresight the speed selected by the driver would have been perfectly appropriate.

Mark (Wilts) mentions that perception will open a whole new can of worms and in that he is perfectly correct. To understand perception you have first to understand the functions and limitations of the human brain and sensory system.

Human brain 101

We have a brain for one reason only and that is the creation of complex and adaptable movement because without movement we cannot affect the world around us. Our brain works by making predictions about movement in the world based on the memory of how things have moved in the past. Our primary sensory organs (sight, touch, sound, somatosensory) are dedicated to the detection of movement sequences and their conversion into signals that can be stored in the memory system. There you go, the human brain in three sentences.

From this knowledge about brains then we can reliably state that accidents are caused when the brain fails to correctly predict a sequence of movements. The surprise is the brain's way of alerting us to that failure and so if there is no surprise then there can be no accident.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise - No accident

Agree (5) | Disagree (2)
+3

Bob
You say "The majority of accidents are actually caused by inappropriate speed, which is travelling to fast for the conditions ...".

For reasons explained in my earlier postings, travelling too fast for the conditions would be hazardous but the accident requires some other event to trigger the accident sequence (eg vehicle/pedestrian getting in its path, or a burst tyre, or phone ringing, etc).

This is perhaps best illustrated on the Police, Camera, Action type programmes when chases can continue for several miles at high-speed until the driver (typically) makes a misjudgement.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Researcher, St Albans

Agree (5) | Disagree (1)
+4

Well funnily enough Eric, I spent about ten years in speed management involving all of the three Es, so one does get to understand the subject quite well.

I am aware, like most, of your anti-speed management views so I wasn't terribly worried about whether you personally understood and agreed with what I said, it was really more for the wider readership.

As a courtesy however, referring back to the clip, our driver is driving at a speed from which he/she could avoid any triggering event, so in that context, his/her speed is a good indicator of whether he/she are safe. Obviously we don't know if he/she was drunk and on their 'phone in which case the moderate speed alone wouldn't be enough to make them safe, but as it's a DVSA video let's take a punt and assume they are not.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (5) | Disagree (3)
+2

I have not been involved in this discussion and I love what is coming out of it. It is contributions by members of this forum that will widen the knowledge of more people with the same aim. That's what it was started for.

As said there are many fine minds in discourse on this subject or rather the subject of individuals' propensity to become involved in accidents. Many accidents are considered related to travelling over the speed limit. To my understanding that's not true only 7% of accidents can by fact be a co-factor in an accident. The majority of accidents are actually caused by inappropriate speed, which is travelling to fast for the conditions appertaining at the time not therefore over the speed limit.

I thank Mark. Wiltshire for mentioning 'space' to be a factor in many as a causation or contributory factor in some accidents and Hugh Jones for mentioning tailgaters. To my mind it is in the main a lack of understanding or ignorance on the part of the driver and possibly a lack of training for them to understand just what a safe distance actually is.
Bob Craven... Space is Safe Campaigner..

Agree (4) | Disagree (2)
+2

Hugh
Your suggestion that accidents should not happen based on your view that the driver in the clip is "driving at a controllable speed" is one of the most naive and ill-informed comments I have seen posted on this website.

Elsewhere on these pages, in response to Nick's "New Year wish list" you suggested that "contributors could at least be required to state their relevant background and professional/amateur status, so readers could at least take their comments in context?".

Perhaps you could enlighten us in your background/experience and hence explain how safe driving can be assessed based solely on the speed of the vehicle?
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Researcher, St Albans

Agree (0) | Disagree (2)
-2

Can I drag people back to the subject of this news item - speed enforcement? As this thread talks about triggering events and hazards and what to do about them, speeders (and tailgaters) are the most constant and abundant hazards on our roads and is something that has been addressed for some time through speed management methods. Referring again to the DVSA clip eleswhere, there are actual and potential triggering events shown, but the fact that 'our driver' is already driving at a controllable speed, none of these need lead to an accident.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (2) | Disagree (4)
-2

Eric: Sorry for the confusion as there are two Marks here Caerphilly (C) and Wiltshire (W) you said Mark and I assumed Mark C when you meant Mark W.
Mark, Caerphilly

Agree (1) | Disagree (0)
+1

Eric
Agreed. Your comments hit the nail bang on the head - excellent.
Duncan. Agreed Your comments are also bang on the bulls eye - excellent.

My first two assumptions/definitions are a result of classical/Newtonian physics. I'll stick with the Newtonian bit - if we bring in quantum or relativistic physics the discussion could get down right weird!

The last two assumptions involve the organic element, an animal - human, deer or badger etc. This will of necessity also involve a brain, which will be of varying levels of sophistication that is dependent on the animal type.

Let's say that a hazard is anything that contains an element of actual or potential danger. Let's add that the risk of a collision is related to the probability of two or more bodies colliding and what happens to them if they do. The more space there is around the bodies the less is the chance that the brains will be surprised. The consequences will be related to the type of bodies that collide and their relative impact speed.

Three important factors emerge from this:
trigger event - Eric;
surprise - Duncan;
space - Bob.

But, there's something else - perception. This can open a whole new can of worms as I reckon it could relate to both a systems and a behaviourist approach to reducing the frequency of collisions. What I've put forward isn't new, but what is brilliant is that there are lots of extremely intelligent people who contribute to these threads and who may view the content from different contexts. That's how progress is made; bring on the light bulb effect. Over to you Duncan, Eric, Bob et al.
Mark - Wiltshire

Agree (5) | Disagree (1)
+4

People have collided with absolutely everything in, on and around the roadway so essentially everything is hazardous. The idea of the 'hazard' as a discrete element pre-supposes there are parts of the roadscene that are not hazards which is patently not the case.
Duncan Mackillop. No surprise - No accident.

Agree (2) | Disagree (2)
0

Mark
I was referring to your "assumptions" in the post immediately prior to mine.
1. A collision will involve contact between one or more bodies (DEFINITION);
2. A collision between one or more bodies will only occur when one or more of the bodies is moving (SELF EVIDENT).
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Researcher

Agree (4) | Disagree (2)
+2

Duncan:
You can’t have it both ways – either we all pay the same premium, or the premium reflects the (perceived) risks based on claims history and other indicative factors including age, (no longer) gender, vehicle and location (though this probably relates to theft risk not collision risk). The fact that the latter affects the premium indicates to me that there is not an “equal casualty risk irrespective of driver skill/behaviour”. You also ignore the comment about telematics which as a direct measure of driver behaviour and exposure to external risk (I acknowledge that risk varies by road, time of day and weather) only makes sense if the controllable elements of driver behaviour affect the risk of a claim.

Eric:
If by my first assumption you mean that there is “an equal casualty risk irrespective of driver skill/behaviour” then you misunderstand me as I think that is Duncan’s assumption and I would state that “there is *not* an equal casualty risk irrespective of driver skill/behaviour”. If you think my second (actually a source of supporting information to support my first statement) is that we all pay the same premiums (or rather our past driving and claims history is not taken into account) then again you misunderstand me. I believe that our past (or with telematics current) driving behaviour is taken into account in the premium and therefore insurance companies believe that they indicate a higher risk.

So I am making one point, not two, which put more elegantly would be “All other things being equal, the casualty risk is related to driver skills and behaviour”.

So on a wet rural road it is the driver who is driving hard who is most likely to lose control than the one who is moderating their behaviour to account for the conditions. Similarly on a busy motorway it is the driver who is driving too close, particularly when following other closely spaced cars, who is likely to end up in a pile up, than the one who is ensuring that there is enough stopping room for themselves and the vehicle behind. Of course nobody can insulate themselves from the behaviour of the irresponsible around us but you can improve your chances.

This is a long way from speeding fines!
Mark, Caerphilly

Agree (5) | Disagree (5)
0

This particular discussion thread could usefully refer to the DVSA's video clip shown in the other news item and which shows quite realistically, everyday driving scenarios including potential hazards, actual hazards and potential and actual triggering events. It would make a good case study. If our driver was speeding, that would be a moving hazard all the way along this stretch of road and the speeding car emerging from the side road and the blue Mazda waiting to turn could be triggering events and our driver would not be able to stop.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (1) | Disagree (2)
-1

Duncan

I normally agree with you but ...
A bald tyre is hazardous - so attending to car maintenance addresses it.
A tired/drunk driver is hazardous - so don't drive if tired/drunk.

Some hazards are within the gift of the driver to deal with.

Other hazards are caused by conditions (weather, time of day), road layout, or other road users, and driving involves dealing with those hazards while making safe progress.

I have given some examples of triggering events - they are widely varying, difficult if not impossible to predict, but agree that developing the means to predict/recognise them and eliminate/mitigate them is essential.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Researcher

Agree (4) | Disagree (1)
+3

Eric maintains that we will reduce collisions by addressing the causes of hazardous conditions or triggering events.

All conditions are naturally hazardous once you start moving so the only place to start looking is with the triggering events.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise - No accident

Agree (2) | Disagree (4)
-2

Understanding what causes collisions is essential to reducing them.

I would suggest Mark's first assumption is a definition, and his second is self-evident (assumptions need to be validated but that does not apply to those).

Most accidents are the result of a hazardous condition (eg. a tired/drunk driver, fog, bald tyre, an overtaking manoeuvre, driver distracted) combined with a triggering (or initiating) event, such as a misjudgement, dazzled by the sun, a change of road surface, driver nodding off, a sudden manoeuvre of a vehicle without a signal, etc. A collision usually needs a hazardous condition AND a triggering event; take either away and the collision is very unlikely to happen.

A hazard or hazardous condition can be thought of as "an accident waiting to happen". The accident sequence may be started when a triggering event is added to the hazardous condition. Once the accident sequence has started, a collision can be prevented by the skill of one or more of the road users involved (eg braking, swerving or some other avoiding action); failing that, the severity of the collision can be reduced (mitigated) by, say, crash barriers, seatbelts, air-bags, crumple zones and so on. Luck can also play a part in whether an accident sequence leads to an accident or not (a driver who falls asleep and crosses into the oncoming lane when no-one is coming and revives before any oncoming traffic appears is lucky).

Hence we will reduce collisions by addressing the causes of hazardous conditions or triggering events.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Researcher

Agree (6) | Disagree (6)
0

An adventure in 'out of the box' thinking - any takers?
Problem: People die and get injured in road traffic collisions.
Solution: Eliminate road traffic collisions.
Question: How can we do it?

Let's drill down a bit - some assumptions:
* A collision will involve contact between one or more bodies;
* A collision between one or more bodies will only occur when one or more of the bodies is moving;
* A collision will only occur when somebody or something invades somebody else's space and one or more of the parties involved can't or won't take avoiding (evasive) action;
* Very few people deliberately set out to have a collision.

Consider proximal and distal factors and the who, what, why, where, when and how of a collision.

And, by the way, sharpen your bits!
Mark - Wiltshire

Agree (4) | Disagree (1)
+3

Hang on a sec Duncan - first you said "...most of the worst behaved drivers never crash, but some of the best behaved drivers do..." then you backtrack with "..it is true that we don't know the individual characteristics of everyone who's ever crashed and nor are we ever likely to.." Stop guessing!

It would be interesting to have psychological profiles of those who do crash, but what we do have and what we have to address, is the evidence of what we see everyday on our roads - bad behaviour - which only someone with their head in the sand would deny had anything to do with crashes.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (9) | Disagree (4)
+5

We do all have the same insurance premiums! They appear to be related to the region you live in and your age otherwise any variation is down to competition between companies and of course previous claims record. It looks like skill and behaviour just doesn't enter into the equation.

It is true that we don't know the individual characteristics of everyone who's ever crashed and nor are we ever likely to. Because we don't have a psychological profile of every crasher that means the assertion that bad behaviour is somehow to blame for crashes just cannot be proven. The fact that far too many people continue to belive something they have no evidence for illustrates the depths of the problems we have to overcome.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise - No accident.

Agree (4) | Disagree (8)
-4

Duncan:
If your comment that implies an equal casualty risk irrespective of driver skill/behaviour were correct then we would all have the same insurance premiums and insurance companies would not be investing in the use of telematics as a way of giving (young) drivers lower premiums.
Mark, Caerphilly

Agree (6) | Disagree (5)
+1

Duncan:
I think I've mentioned this before, but you comment as if you have files on every driver in the world, their behaviour and their accident record. Do you know the individual characteristics of everyone who's ever crashed? Poor driver behaviour doesn't inevitably lead to a collision everytime, it just makes it highly likely that it will do one day, somewhere, so it needs to be addressed.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (6) | Disagree (4)
+2

I thought that the actual problem was people dying in car crashes not the difficulties of treating 'poor driver behaviour'?

When you consider that most of the worst behaved drivers never crash, but some of the best behaved drivers do then why is everybody concerned about driver behaviour? If it is behaviour that's a cause rather than a symptom then clearly there should be carnage amongst the badly behaved and nothing to trouble the scorers amongst the well behaved. There is no such distinction, but still behaviour is considered to be a cause even with mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise - No accident.

Agree (4) | Disagree (8)
-4

Speed management - whether strict enforcement or gentle persuasion - is a way of treating one of the symptoms of the underlying problem i.e poor driver behaviour - itself rooted in attitude, civic responsibilty, anti-social tendencies, arrogance, propensity to be law-abiding, being conscientous and no doubt lots of other behavioural traits. If the psychologists can get to the bottom of these traits and find a way of addressing them, then a lot of other problems in society may be solved at the same time. Until they do however, we have to address the symptoms. Speeders are fortunately in the minority, but stil enough to cause aggravation and harm to themselves and others.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (8) | Disagree (5)
+3

Never thought I would have to explain the difference between symptoms and causes to such an educated audience, but here goes anyway.

A symptom is a departure from normal function that indicates the presence of disease or abnormality. The key words in this are 'normal' and 'indicate' so for example a runny nose is not normal therefore it indicates the presence of a disease (probably a cold). You can spend a fortune in trying to fix the indication (hence the lucrative remedies market), but that does not fix the underlying problem. If you want to fix the underlying problem you have to start asking some serious questions about the symptoms and keep on asking until the underlying problem is revealed. Night Nurse and Lem Sip do not eliminate viruses therefore they are not solutions to the problem of the common cold.

The question seems to be "symptoms of what" and that is exactly the question that needs to be asked.

Mandy suggests that ignorance of the posted limit might be a cause, but if you ask why a driver did not know what the limit was then that might indicate inadequate signage might be something to look at. If your investigations concluded that the signage was clear and unabiguous it might send you to look at visual perception and so on. The trick is never to stop investigating because the deeper you drill down through a problem the closer you get to understanding it. If you understand it you can then work out how to actually cure it.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise - No accident.

Agree (6) | Disagree (2)
+4

As this report is based on court data it suggests either more drivers are rejecting the offer of a fixed penalty instead choosing to have their case heard by a magistrate or more drivers are exceeding the posted limit by more than the limit for the offer of a fixed penalty.
Chris Harrison Gloucestershire

Agree (7) | Disagree (0)
+7

Hi Dave
Can you provide a link to the "best quality data available" that shows cameras are contributing to KSI collisions (and please do not link to your own report). There is plenty of data published on camera sites which can be found with a simple web query and this shows that some sites are extremely effective (eg B6132 Laithes Lane, Barnsley) and some are not so (A631 Bawtry Road, Rotherham), but I have not seen anything showing an increase after a site has been established.

Duncan - can you be a bit more constructive - symptoms of what and how would you treat this?
Dave H, Watford

Agree (12) | Disagree (4)
+8

Speeding is a "symptom" of what? I don't understand the comment. Since excess or inappropriate speed can be the result of a number of causes - ignorance of the posted limit, ignorance of the vehicle speed, deliberate contravention etc. - presumably it is also symptomatic of a number of things? Whilst on the subject of symptoms, if it's not worth treating them why is the cold and flu remedies market so lucrative?
Mandy Rigault. Oxfordshire.

Agree (5) | Disagree (3)
+2

What is the link between fines imposed by magistrates and fixed penatly notices from cameras. Are these failed appeals, cases where the speed over the limit was very large or cases from other detection?

On what is cause and what is symptom - you can chase that around in a circle unless you believe the cause is that all speed limits are inappropriate.
Mark, Caerphilly

Agree (1) | Disagree (2)
-1

Poor skill, competence, attitude etc are still symptoms I'm afraid.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise - No accident

Agree (10) | Disagree (3)
+7

The problem is that the best quality evidence available suggests speed cameras are not reducing fatal and serious collisions and are, in fact, contributing to more of them.

There is no real evidence, though, whether the fine levels are a contributory factor in the increases. Eg, it is possible that the lower a speed limit is below the maximum safe speed, the greater the effects of speed cameras therefore the higher the increase in fatal and serious collisions and also the higher the fine rate.

Perhaps for 2015 we need a new year's resolution to start performing the tests that would produce the quality of evidence that could end the continuous arguments over the effects of interventions, and start producing the evidence base that we all aspire to? Let’s replace disagreeing about opinions with agreement about evidence.
Dave Finney, Slough

Agree (9) | Disagree (19)
-10

Excess/inappropriate speed may be a symptom but the disease (poor skill, competence, attitude etc) is slow/difficult to treat, and speed enforcement has played a significant part in reduced injury numbers and severities in urban and rural areas. I've no problem treating a symptom if it reduced the chance of a collision, or reduced severity in event of one occurring. If I got meningitis I'd happily take a drug that reduced the chance of me dying, without complaining about how I caught it in the first place. My first principle would be tackle what you can while you seek a solution for what you can't yet tackle effectively.
Kate Carpenter, London

Agree (21) | Disagree (5)
+16

Speeding is both a symptom and a cause, but more importantly and in the context of the news story - it's also an offence.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (19) | Disagree (6)
+13

'Speeding' is a symptom not a cause. The world of medical science abandoned trying to cure disease by fixing symptoms a long time ago so why are we still doing it?
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon

Agree (9) | Disagree (15)
-6