Image: Go Safe Wales
Police officers across the UK participated in a week-long speed enforcement operation which got underway on 21 August.
The purpose of the operation, coordinated by the European Traffic Police Network (TISPOL), was to raise awareness of the dangers of speeding and remind drivers of the benefits for all road users of driving at speeds that are both legal and appropriate.
Among the police forces taking part in the UK is Suffolk Police, whose officers – alongside colleagues in Norfolk – used a combination of education and enforcement to highlight the potential consequences of driving above the speed limit.
Chief inspector Kris Barnard, head of the joint Norfolk and Suffolk Roads Policing Unit, said: "We work closely with our partners all-year round to target speeding drivers and these campaigns allow us to enforce the law while also raising awareness of the dangers and educating motorists.”
Paulo Cestra, TISPOL president, said: “We urge all drivers to challenge their own attitude to speeding.
“Anyone who still believes that speeding is a trivial offence needs to think again. Excessive or inappropriate speed has a singularly devastating impact on the safety of road users, increasing both the risk of a crash and the severity of the consequences.
“It is estimated that speeding contributes to as many as one third of all crashes resulting in death, and is the most important contributory factor to road deaths and serious injuries.
“All across Europe this week, police officers will be ensuring that drivers respect the different speed limits. In cases where drivers choose to ignore these limits, officers will take appropriate steps to enforce the law.”
Hugh and David. The alternative is also true that if a driver were unable to stop within a certain distance, lets make that the distance between himself and the vehicle in front then either [1] he was driving to fast for the circumstances, not necessarily speeding or [2] more than likely not giving sufficient Safe Following On Distance.
If he had maintained that speed but had giving greater distance, Safe Distance then he would have been able to stop in time. Its all am matter of perception, its either recognised as speed that is to blame as it usuaually is the case or a lack of distance which is seldom considered. But still true.
Many motorway pile ups involve motorists that are not actually speeding but generally have failed to give enough Safe Space beween themnselves and the vehicle in front. If distance were to be increased then when the initial collision occurred no other vehicles would become involved due to the giving of that Safer Space or Safe Following On Distance. Whatever one may call it. Safe Space works well by those that understand, adopted and use it.
Bob Craven Lancs
0
Guzzi, whilst HOTA would be required if you were doing speed or red light enforcement of a static image, the same is not necessarily true for a video clip. Firstly consider the DashCam stories and the modern interpretation of a Police Office having to observe the offence. Secondly, whilst testing a new type of red light camera some drivers were seen to drive through a red light. Although the cameras were not HOTA at the time the relevant police force were prepared and successful at prosecuting on the basis of the video evidence. I presume if you were doing 60 in a 70 limit and two cars passed at speed with a fraction of a second between them, then the police would probably act on DashCam or even (a passenger’s) mobile phone footage.
Mark, Caerphilly
0
Quite right David. Putting it another way, it’s easy to speed, but not so easy to stop from that speed safely – it’s a common shortcoming amongst speeders, I’ve found. If a driver did not stop in time within a certain distance, logically the speed from which he/she attempted to stop must have been too high due to misjudgment, over- confidence, taking their eye off the ball etc. and even poor brakes!
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
At least it would be on the way to progress. There is none at this moment in time and whilst there is innaction there are people being killed and seriously injured on our roads. Just because nothing is being done about it.
m.worthington Manchester
0
One man’s ‘too close to stop’ is another man’s ‘too fast to stop’ – same thing, so targeting speeders is indirectly also targeting ‘too close followers’
I can be – and have been – driving at 150mph+ on an Autobahn and still if necessary be able to make a complete stop gracefully without hitting the car in front. In fact, when I’m on an Autobahn, or any road in general I slow down to a speed where I can perform such a manoeuvre (shallow corners and the like)
It’s not predominately speed Hugh but a drivers’ attitude. Chasing each other’s tails in a set of roadworks with a limit of 50mph controlled by average speed cameras is far more dangerous than say, driving at what some people on here would call “silly speeds” up a quiet motorway with discipline.
(Despite that I am somewhat agreement with your point that it’s usually the speeders who tailgate – however my viewpoint is it isn’t purely “speeding” but “aggressive driving”, hence attitude)
On a similar note, I’m seeing more of those “keep clear 2 chevron” installations of motorways disappearing. Shame, really. Always found that motorway discipline was at least a tiny bit better in those sections…
David Weston, Corby
0
Home Office type approval was needed before new types of speed/safety cameras could be introduced into speed enforcement . If that principle is still applicable, it is not a quick process.
Guzzi, Newport
0
If I agree with your logic Hugh can we THEN make some progress. I thought so……. so yes I AGREE.
Bob Craven Lancs
0
There are already cameras that have been designed for this use only and they are available from America. All it takes is one authority or other road safety concious organisation to obtain one and do some testing and then if it works start enforcing the law and prosecuting these dangerous drivers.
Once we have the means by which we can enforce the law then maybe some education wouldnt go amiss also. By that I mean real education and not just bits and peices from any one of 4 differing tables.
We need to re test vehicles and up date old infromation that is blatently held in disregard by some and come up with a difinitive distance from 10 to 70 mph for all different classes of vehicles and not just cars and light vans. Lets give the police the support they need and the weapons to use to obtain a safer road environment.
Bob Craven Lancs
0
Bob: As has been pointed out before on this forum, our speed determines our stopping ability (or not) and our stopping ability is therefore determined by our speed, so the two are inexorably linked. One man’s ‘too close to stop’ is another man’s ‘too fast to stop’ – same thing, so targeting speeders is indirectly also targeting ‘too close followers’.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
I wonder if the latest Jenoptik (nee Vysionics) cameras could be programmed to (having measured the speed then, based on the time difference of V1 and V2 being less than ‘safe’) send a video clip of the incident just the same way as they do for red light? A new use of the cameras?
Mark, Caerphilly
0
Sometimes we can’t, won’t or don’t make out the difference between too much speed ……or in truth, the giving of too little safe following on distance.
A simple example would be a 60 mph limit and both vehicles are travelling at or about that speed. However the following vehicle would be about 100ft behind the lead vehicle. Now what’s the problem with that if any? Many drivers would say none at all as if the front vehicle slows then the rear vehicle can slow also and no collision occurs.
However if the front vehicle comes to an almost or absolute halt, it having been collided with from a vehicle emerging from a junction, then what do we now feel about the distance that the rear car driver was giving?
Undxer those emergency circumstances was it enough? The simple answer is probably not, it should have been about 240ft. So by not giving safe following on distance a further collision may occur. However in the main speed is usually identified as the causation of collisions or other incidents such as this. No police oficer would ever report a car for being 100ft behind another for any speed no matter it being at 60 mph.
This is why the police need to get their heads around this offence. It’s not just about tailgating, it’s about clear visible distance at all times in all circumstances that makes for safer roads. NPCC needs to put in place a plan that they can work with in order to deter tailgating offenders. One which can be effective and act also as a deterrent.
It’s not just speed its space as well.
Bob Craven Lancs
0
I have to agree with increase in tailgating issues, these drivers on the motorway cause more accidents in my opinion than speeders. Speeding is easy money, actually catching tailgating requires a lot more effort and money for a small return, not good business so not worth the polices effort due to funding. Yes I do use the motorways travelling over 100 miles a day and see this irresponsible type driving all the time.
Elliott. North Kent
0
Once again thank you Hugh but your comment looked patronising. I am not used to getting support.I feel sometimes that I am a lone voice in the wilderness.
That said many drivers commit many offences and they are challenged by the police and brought to book. That however is not true of tailgaters. They are only done sparingly when a collision occurs and its obvious that one party was to blame.
I am also committed to the safety of motorcyclists and the training that they presently undertake and the training that should be made available to them. Training that will keep more motorcyclists alive. As can be seen I am also passionate about the 20 is plenty scheme which I do endorse and follow and look forward to any evidence that it does work. So other facets of road safety involve me besides tailgating.
Bob Craven Lancs
0
A puzzling response Bob! You clearly do have an issue with tailgaters though and I was just reassuring you that in my experience they do commit other offences – usually speeding – and that it is more than likely at some time, somewhere they would be brought to book and dealt with for a motoring offence of some sort. Don’t forget also, the speed camera vans can film tailgaters and collect evidence although it is subjective as to what is too close.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
I beg to differ Hugh. I do not feel the need to be consoled in any way or at all. Whilst I agree that it would or could be the same drivers that speed, tailgating is more prevelant under the speed limits and therefore they do not necessarily get caught for speeding. Do they get caught for tailgating … of course not. Speeding in itself is a totally different issue and it does not follow that a driver done for speeding would change his attitude to tailgating at all. They and many other drivers are still a danger that as yet has not being recognised properly and dealt with as a serious road safety matter.
The problem of tailgating is reaching epidemic proportions, its getting out of control and that means that there will be more collisions as a result. More deaths and serious injuries, more claims for whiplash, larger insurance premiums and damage all round and a cost to the nation’s health. Those drivers mentioned and many others are not deterred at all and that’s because we have concentrated so much on speed and not on this specific danger.
By dealing with tailgating we will improve the general road scene where distances between vehicles is increased and made safer and that will have the effect of benefiting all road users by increased visibility and the ability to recognise and prevent danger earlier and to be able to stop in the distance seen to be clear and on ones own side of the road. A simple request, deal with tailgating and save many lives.
We only need one police constabulary to set up a stopping system for a short period of time to see if its viable.
Bob Craven Lancs
0
Console yourself Bob with the thought that serial tailgaters/close followers are also serial speeders and will eventually be pulled up. We can hope that after several offences detected, they could be off the road.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Unfortunately this is all about speed and does not take into account those dangerous and inconsiderate drivers that continually tailgate others at speeds than do not exceeed the ACPO,now the NPCC speed limit. If officers were to stop drivers who by this simple distance guide were obviously tailgating and either report them for the offence or give them a caution then the roads would end up being a much safer place.
All that is needed is a good straight road not close to traffic lights or roundabouts with the placing of two visible markers or posts, one the safe stopping distance behind the other. For example in a 50 mph road it would be two posts spaced 175ft apart or in a 60 mph limit spaced at 240ft. Then as vehicles approach there respective speeds are measured and it would be easy to see the distance that the rear car is from the front and if well within those posts then the driver of the rear car should be stopped and informed of the offence – reported or cautioned or warned. It doesn’t have to be marker posts but another police vehicle or van or tree or lamp standard that could be used.
I wonder just how many drivers would be stopped in one day. Plenty I would imagine. Perhaps some authority could take this matter up with their local constabulary and see if one day at it would produce results.
Bob Craven Lancs
0