The extraordinary views of Norfolk PCC Stephen Bett were today roundly condemned by colleagues and motoring groups who described his views as “nonsense.”
Notice the choice of language here. His views are “extraordinary”. Yet, what, precisely has he said that has the usual suspects baying for blood?
Interviewed on local BBC Mr Bett said:”I would abolish speed limits on motorways and other major roads – We ought to drive to road conditions rather than set limits.
So, not extraordinary at all. In fact, perfectly sensible. We should be driving to the conditions and not be bombarded with absurdly low speed limits imposed either for political reasons or because someone once had an accident and the risk averse local authority decided that we must all crawl in order to avoid us having a similar one – because, you see in their warped little world, we are far too stupid to look out for ourselves.
“The problem is that there are so many signs drivers get mesmerised by them. If we are going to do anything about speed and villagers we ought to take down all the signs and say all villages are 30mph and you drive on roads like they do in Germany and Italy, as road conditions say.”
Precisely.
Asked how fast people should be allowed to drive Mr Bett, who is believed to be earning almost £90,000 a year in his new post, replied:”It depends on the driver – if you’ve got a Formula One racing driver well you can go flat out. If he was a racing driver and really, really good and had tremendous reflexes, probably as fast as the car will go.”
Again, precisely. We already have law that can be used in the event of someone driving without due care and attention. If the driver is competent and can stop in what he can see to be clear, then that is the safe speed. Simple, really.
Later an unrepentant Mr Bett defended his views claiming there were too many road signs which may actually not help safe driving.
Again, spot on. And at least he hasn’t been browbeaten into apologising for his “extraordinary” views. Those views are correct and they need airing. I for one am sick to the back teeth with having to constantly check my speedometer in order to preserve my licence when in fact I should be looking at the road and adjusting speed according to what I see. The reality is that I do precisely that, however, I do spend more time than is comfortable looking at the instruments because I never know when the aresholes who want to fine us will be lurking with a camera.
So, well said Mr Bett and can we look forward to a more sensible approach to road use?
My village has just had a 20mph limit imposed, to replace the 30mph. Because the roads are so narrow and winding no one could reach 30 anywhere. Now instead of concentrating on the road, I find myself checking the speedometer instead.
No-one in authority seems to have realised that checking the speedometer all the time means constantly having to take your eyes off the road.
I’d say that this surprises me, but unfortunately it doesn’t. At all.
About fifteen years ago, in my area, a new bypass was constructed. Common sense would have suggested that the whole thing should have been a dual carraigeway, but what we got was a single carraigeway wide enough for three cars. As a result we got impatient drivers, who, instead of waiting for a safe opportunity to overtake, would just barge their way down the middle of the road. I still find it astonishing that it took around ten years before a southbound barger found a northbound barger but eventually there was a head on crash involving several fatalities. A sane response would have been to change the road markings so that the road had three lanes. For half of the roughly ten miles there would be two lanes going north and one going south. For the other half there would be one lane going north and two lanes going south. the two streams of traffic seperated by double white lines. The actual response was to impose a fifty mph speed limit along the whole stretch. So, the next time there is a head on crash involving several fatalities, there is an outside chance that the vehicles involved might be travelling just a little bit slower.
It scares the crap out of Councils and other drive-predatory bodies that experiments where traffic lights, road signs and other impedimenta are removed and traffic and pedestrian movements are not only quicker but also safer. All the revenue garnered from the slightest infringement of the RULES is lost, even though the public at large gain benefits from the deregulation.
The Powers That Be cannot abide the fact that the removal of their regulations is, in fact, more beneficial than the regulations themselves. The various real-life experiments have shown, time and again, that when given the choice, drivers DO pay attention, they DO react appropriately to the conditions prevailing at that specific time and place and that the movement of all road users is enhanced.
Reminds me of an old copy of Bike magazine- the front cover was a road sign showing a bend with the information sign below the triangle saying “SLOW! (except Bimotas)”
But as you and this copper says, crawling along in fear of a fine does not make for good driving. The motorcycle cops round our way run a bike assessment, in which they follow you to check your biking skills. They expect you to “make good safe progress” and I was rebuked for being tentative, at a miserable 75mph in a 60!
You could all be crawling along at 1mph and someone would still end up under your wheels. Not much you can do about The Entitled.
I find it extraordinairy that killing and/or disabling them doesn’t work.
What is all the fuss about “taking my eyes off the road so that I can check the speedometer”?
When I was learning to drive (1970), my BSM Instructor taught me to “know” what my speed was; indeed he would on occasions cover the speedometer dial and ask me to tell him what me speed was, and woe betide me if I did not know! Thus I now have an instinctive feel for my speed (but I still check the speedometer).
He also taught me to take my eyes of the road on a regular basis to check that all was well on the dash-board warning lights / dials, to look in my rear-view mirror, and to look in my wing mirrors. I also took my eyes off the road to into approaching road junctions to check what the traffic was doing, as well as pavements, especially when free-range children were about.
As for being “in fear”, if you are driving to the road conditions, which of course includes speed limit signs, then what is there to fear?
Having said all that, there are many roads where the imposition of a speed limit below the “national” one is clearly bonkers, and like all bonkers rules they bring the system into ridicule and disrepute.
I think we all know when we are travelling at about 30mph as opposed to 70mph. But the point is that cameras et al do not care if we are travelling at about the right speed. They check that we are travelling at below a set speed.
Can you honestly guarantee that when you think you travelling at 30mph you really are on many different types of roads, up hill and down, on narrow roads with buildings either side and when there is wide open spaces either side. If you say you can then you are lying.
However if you know what 20mph is like, then you will travel at that speed in a 30mph zone so that you do not need to look at your speedo as you can then allow for a margin of error. But then you have the people looking at their speedo doing exactly 30mph (99% of all drivers) running into back of you as you dawdle along.
When I was taught to drive, I was told to keep looking out the windscreen, and in the mirrors. And to look well ahead and anticipate. I am more worried about dogs than children, as children are well trained not to run around, but dogs aren’t. But when I come to a speed camera, it will be one of the few times I look at the dashboard to check my speed. Why? Because the punishment for going 5mph over is draconian. Am I in fear about driving to the road conditions when it includes speed limit signs. Not usually, but then I could be driving at the set speed limit when the roads are icy. I am not in any fear of legal issues, but I could still cause an accident. Road signs do not take that into account, so they try and use the lowest speed, as you say. But then you get the stupidity of dual carriageways set at 50mph with speed cameras every mile (A666) when the road is safe for 70mph.
A law which can be brought into ridicule is a useless law as no one will believe in it.
“Thus I now have an instinctive feel for my speed (but I still check the speedometer)”
That might have been OK back in the 70’s (when you and I were learning to drive/ride), and would have been behind the wheel of a Mk 1 Mini or similar. But in modern cars, particularly automatics, those audible clues are absent, and you could be doing 30mph or 50mph and it sounds exactly the same. That’s why you have to check the speedometer!
“If you are driving to the road conditions, which of course includes speed limit signs, then what is there to fear?”
I suggest you read the post again – the whole point is that an arbitrary limit bears little relation to the actual road conditions, which could vary from fine dry weather and light traffic, to torrential rain and a nose to tail line of trucks and cars all mixed together. If you are constantly watching the speedometer for “fear” of triggering a hidden camera you are not paying proper attention to the road ahead, and are therefore at greater risk of an accident.
Fortunately, driving instruction has moved on since the nineteen seventies and instructors no longer play glorified parlour games with their students. If you want to know how fast you are travelling, glance at the speedometer as that is why they are fitted. However, my point was about looking too frequently because of the plethora of absurd arbitrary limits combined with vexatious enforcement – when, in fact, the driver should be looking at the road ahead.
So, well said Mr Bett and can we look forward to a more sensible approach to road use?
I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. The ‘speed kills’ zealots still have the keys to the castle.
While we’re on about distracting and pointless road signs that merely divert drivers’ attention, how turning OFF the motorway signs when there’s nothing useful and important to say, instead of distracting us with “Check your fuel” or “Underinflated tyres are dangerous” or “Heavy rain forecast Saturday”, etc etc.
It’s just a thought.
On my daily eleven mile commute the speed limit varies constantly, often for no discernable reason. From memory:
Home/30/60/40/30/60/40/20/40/30/20/30/20/30/40/30/40/30/Work.
I now know the route so well that I know what the limit is at any time. A stranger travelling the same route would need to be really on the ball not to miss a single speed limit sign and get caught out.
LR, I can now visit from my work computer again thank you for doing whatever you did to let me back in.
My spaminator had kept a log of the IP. When I removed that the whitelist appears to have done its job.
I’ve been on one of those speed awareness courses ………. I am now fully qualified to speed and should I get stopped by our illustrious police force again ….and am asked…. do you know wot speed you woz doin sir ?…… I can proudly say…yes officer….look I have a certificate to prove it…..
The funny thing is, when I told the course tutor I once drove on the German authobahn at 140 mph’s she looked at me as if I had just admitted that I had microwaved a kitten !
She still didn’t get it when I said that I hadn’t broken the law, no more than if I had driven at any speed on say one of the unrestricted roads on the Isle of Man. She scrambled for her script, but couldn’t find the section that says it is possible to drive at over 70 miles per hour and A) not kill yourself or B) kill anyone else or C) crash or damage my or any one elses car……needless to say I nearly did get a detention for my ‘confession’…….be warned a Speed Awareness College is expending near you….. they are big business it seems…..
Just about every advanced country in the world has enforceable speed limits. If it is such a stupid idea, how come? Of course fixating on speed to the exclusion of all else is silly but I see speed limits as being a lowest common denominator thing to deal with the fact that many drivers are pretty crap and think their skills are far greater than they truly are. I’d rather have enforced speed limits than a Darwinian road system in which those who over-estimate their abilities are killed or kill others. The civil liberties implications of speed limits are pretty minimal and are a reasonable trade off to use the public roads.
I’ve been driving for nearly 30 years, many of those have been high mileage years of 30,000 miles or more. I’ve yet to receive a speeding fine or be done for any other moving traffic offence. You really do not need to look at your speedo all the time to keep within the 30 limit. Glancing at it from time to time and keeping control of the pressure you apply to the pedal should be quite sufficient to keep you within the limit.
Just because every advanced country does something, it doesn’t follow that they have got it right and should keep doing it. After all, they are starting to realise that their obsession with traffic lights is counter productive and shared space raises driving standards as well as slowing traffic down in urban areas.
There are advanced countries that do allow people to drive quickly on certain roads and there isn’t a carnage as a consequence (yes, I’ve done three-figure speeds legally in Germany and exceeded our national speed limit on the Isle of Man and lived to tell the tale). The reason we have lower than desirable competence isn’t because of a lack of state interference, but because there is too much. People wrongly assume that lower speed limits make the roads safer. They do not. The reality is that bad drivers will ignore them anyway and good drivers will ignore those that are obviously absurdly low – and, indeed, when faced with law that is plainly absurd, civil disobedience is the appropriate response as I see on a daily basis on a 40mph road near me. The road was until recently national speed limit and can obviously support that speed, so drivers travel at 60mph in blatant contravention of the 40mph limits and the nagging nanny knows best flashing reminders. They do so perfectly safely.
So, no, we should not be operating to the lowest common denominator. We should be looking at ways of raising standards and causing drivers to start thinking for themselves is the first step towards that goal. This has nothing to do with civil liberties and everything to do with a practical, pragmatic approach to road safety and improved driver competence.
I do not claim to be the most skilled driver in the world but I am at least basically competent. Like Stephen, I have been driving for 37 years and have never had a speeding fine or been done for any other moving traffic offense. I also have a pretty spotless safety record having had only two accidents, both involving being hit from behind by another driver. Surely it follows that if every driver on the road was only as competent as I am, then the number of accidents would fall to almost zero. So I agree with LR that driver competence is the biggest issue.
I think that the speed awareness course is preferable to simply fining people, but some kind of advanced driving course would be better. Even some ordinary driving lessons that reminded complacent drivers of the basic skills that they have forgotten since passing their test would be better than a fine.
My driving experience is similar. Indeed, I had my first accident in thirty years yesterday when I struck a deer running across the M4 into my path – nothing I could do, unfortunately, and it’s going to hit my NCB, but that’s another story…
However, I have never thought that I could stop learning. What you are hinting at here is continuous development – and I don’t mean a test every few years. Indeed, the DSA are the last people I would expect to be involved beyond standards setting. It doesn’t necessarily need to be at an advanced standard, but people are not always up to date with changes in legislation or driving techniques. A refresher every few years would do us all good. Thing is, compulsion goes against my grain. So, perhaps insurers could offer incentives.
Improving driver competence requires more thinking than sticking up a new speed restriction and, frankly, the faux safety campaigners are easily recognised for being hard of thinking.
Not being done for speeding says nothing about a person’s driving skills. I’ve been done for speeding on a number of occasions but have also had only one accident while moving, when someone came around a blind bend on my side of the road. My passengers were actually grateful of my driving skills that turned a head on into a wing mirror to wing mirror whilst avoiding the steep drop on the left of the road. I’ve noticed that it is a small number of people who have accidents but that they keep having them relatively often, rarely at speed, most frequently an inability to concentrate and a lack of awareness of what is happening on the road around them.
“So, perhaps insurers could offer incentives.”
During the noughties, newly qualified drivers were offered extra training called ‘pass-plus’ in order to qualify for cheaper insurance.
I don’t know why anyone feels they have the right to complain about these comments. He’s been democratically elected!
Ah, but he’s off message, isn’t he? Can’t be having that. Someone might be offended.
@DocBud
I think that that is the point that Norfolk PCC Stephen Bett and the rest of us are trying to make. Slavish adherence to the rules does not make you a safe driver.
That’s precisely the point