Is it worth while contesting a fixed-penalty notice speeding fine?

Arbiter of Good Taste · 25-11-2015 12:39PM

Here's some frank advice - stay off the bloody road until you learn how to drive properly

L1011 · 25-11-2015 12:45PM

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

"It has been observed that a reduction of the speed limit on a road from 60 kph to 50 kph produced a 20 % drop in pedestrian accidents, and a 50 % drop in pedestrian fatalities"

If 9/10 was the original figure for 60kph we're fairly close to the original claim then (50% drop would be 6), still fairly far off statistically but its close enough. Still need a source for 9/10.

I'm not sure where you're getting any idea that it will "obliterate" arguments from, though.

Madd Finn · 25-11-2015 01:01PM

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

All right you nit pickers... seen as you've all become armchair academics and experts on road fatalities, here's a whitepaper for you to read...

Because I knownone of you will read it, I'll highlight the points which obliterate your arguments:

You can call people "nitpickers" OR you can allege that none of us will read it but to say both is almost a contradiction.

Thanks for posting that data. I WILL look at it and if I see anything that excites my fancy I will comment later but just to take you up on your allegations of nit picking.

If one is going to analyse statistics then one MUST take a logical approach to what the statistics actually state. Disraeli once said "there are lies, damn lies and statistics". What I think he was highlighting was a) the subtle difference between facts and truth and b) the willingness of some people to take a sloppy approach to stating what are the facts, as opposed to the truth.

L101 was quite right to say that the two statements were really quite different.

The American statistics I quoted (which I pointed out at the time come from ONE study in one state a long time ago) state quite clearly that 12.5% of pedestrians who were hit by cars travelling at speeds between 31 and 35mph suffered fatal injuries.

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT THE SAME as saying that 85% of pedestrian WHO WERE KILLED were struck by cars travelling at less than 40mph.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that all those 85 per cent were killed at cars travelling between 31 and 35mph, just to normalise the samples. There would still be no contradiction between the two sets of data. It would only imply that seven times as many pedestrians again were also hit by cars travelling between 31 and 35mph but DIDN'T die.

You say nitpicking, I say stating the facts.

Oh and just as a general point [ie not directed at you] repeated from my original post

Madd Finn wrote:

I won't respond to finger waggers who say "Serves you right. Don't break the law" (Tell me something I don't know)

Nor am I looking for any bastard's sympathy. Just some frank advice, hopefully based on experience,

:p

Pinch Flat · 25-11-2015 02:03PM

L1011 wrote: »

That's a secondary source - not a primary one. The ROTR is inaccurate about actual rules from time to time.

I'd be interested if you could find the actual ROSPA source it references

This what I love about Boards. Someone decides the reference is not good enough (primary versus secondary) then expects the poster that posted the information to scurry around and try and find the exact ROSPA reference that the RSA used to quote the 90% of figures.

Yet, when you google "Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed", you get refrences to the Gardai who quote this, http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=6609&Lang=1, a medical professional who deals with casualties in road accidents http://rsa.ie/Global/Presentations/Dr%20%C3%81ine%20Carroll's%20presentation.pdf, local authorithy http://www.roadsafetymayo.ie/CausesofCollisions/ and virtually every news article referenceing this statement .Are we to draw a conclusion that they're all wrong?

Edit - And for the real pedants out there, the following link to an ROSPA publication states:

"Research shows that 90% of people hit by vehicles at 40mph die, compared to 20% at 30mph and 2.5% at 20mph."

https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/practitioners/road-media-guide.pdf

L1011 · 25-11-2015 02:15PM

That's still an uncited source. It appears everyone else is quoting that. If it's wrong they're all wrong as a result and they don't show us the research.

Asking someone for a proper source isn't something unexpected. We're attempting to have a facts based debate here, if that requires you to 'scurry' to find actual facts so be it.

Pinch Flat · 25-11-2015 02:16PM

L1011 wrote: »

That's still an uncited source. It appears everyone else is quoting that. If it's wrong they're all wrong as a result and they don't show us the research.

Asking someone for a proper source isn't something unexpected. We're attempting to have a facts based debate here, if that requires you to 'scurry' to find actual facts so be it.

So you're telling me that all the experts quoted above are wrong and misquoting this? i'm sorry, you're just being downright pedantic now. I'm satisfied that the ROSPA document referenced above, which in turn is referencing their own research, is sufficient to demonstrate this point.

L1011 · 25-11-2015 02:20PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So you're telling me that all the experts quoted above are wrong and misquoting this? i'm sorry, you're just being downright pedantic now. I'm satisfied that the ROSPA document referenced above, which in turn is referencing their own research, is sufficient to demonstrate this point.

No. I'm saying they're all quoting one single source which may be wrong.

You clearly have far lower standards for accepting something as evidence than I do. Nothing even hints that ROSPA are citing ROSPA research in that document.

Wanting valid data is not pedantry. Assuming someone is right because you believe them to be "expert" is a bad idea, as is assuming that an organisation has done or even validated all the research it cites. Or doesn't actually cite at all in this case!

Pinch Flat · 25-11-2015 02:27PM

L1011 wrote: »

No. I'm saying they're all quoting one single source which may be wrong.

In yoir own opinion of course. Do you have special qualifications or a specialism in road safety, higher than for example the medial professional quoted above?

L1011 wrote: »

You clearly have far lower standards for accepting something as evidence than I do. Nothing even hints that ROSPA are citing ROSPA research in that document.

Read the link boae, the ROSPA document identifies the references in the opening page.

L1011 wrote: »

Wanting valid data is not pedantry. Assuming someone is right because you believe them to be "expert" is a bad idea, as is assuming that an organisation has done or even validated all the research it cites. Or doesn't actually cite at all in this case!

No, I see it as pedeantry. Enter "Pedestrian killed at 40mph" int oGoogle and see what it beings back. Are all these reference wrong?

ANyway, http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/misc/fckeditorFiles/file/Danny%20Dorling%20-%2020mph%20Speed%20Limits%20for%20Cars%20in%20Residential%20Areas%20by%20Shops%20and%20Schools.pdf

PAGE 48 - Source: Richards, D.C (2010) Relationship between Speed and Risk of Fatal Injury: Pedestrians and Car
Occupants, Road Saftey Web Publication No. 16, Department for Transport, London.

That graph illustrares the point pretty clearly. Or maybe they're wrong as well.:rolleyes:

L1011 · 25-11-2015 02:34PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

In yoir own opinion of course. Do you have special qualifications or a specialism in road safety, higher than for example the medial professional quoted above?

I never said it is wrong. Professionals cite things which turn out to be untrue all the time.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Read the link boae, the ROSPA document identifies the references in the opening page.

I did. It doens't.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

No, I see it as pedeantry. Enter "Pedestrian killed at 40mph" int oGoogle and see what it beings back. Are all these reference wrong?

IF everything is citing one source (which it appears they are) and IF that source is wrong - yes.

You are committing a massive logical fallacy here, the "2,000,000 Americans Can't Be Wrong" one. Just because you find vast numbers of references to a source, or vast numbers saying the same thing doesn't mean its right.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

ANyway, http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/misc/fckeditorFiles/file/Danny%20Dorling%20-%2020mph%20Speed%20Limits%20for%20Cars%20in%20Residential%20Areas%20by%20Shops%20and%20Schools.pdf

PAGE 48 - Source: Richards, D.C (2010) Relationship between Speed and Risk of Fatal Injury: Pedestrians and Car
Occupants, Road Saftey Web Publication No. 16, Department for Transport, London.

That graph illustrares the point pretty clearly. Or maybe they're wrong as well.:rolleyes:

Have you actually read that graph?

It doesn't support your argument.

suggests a fatality rate of ~45% (not 90%) with a margin of error allowance for 20%-70% (still not 90%) for 40mph.

Compare to the value range for 30mph and you don't get the stated difference of 90% to 50% either.

If you read the page before that, it says 50%.

Are you going to rely on your fallacious "ROSPA and the experts say 90 so 90 it is" or this new document that says 50, then?

flossy1 · 25-11-2015 02:37PM

Sorry for changing subject ,could someone tell me if you get two reminders how long before you go to court

L1011 · 25-11-2015 02:38PM

flossy1 wrote: »

Sorry for changing subject ,could someone tell me if you get two reminders how long before you go to court

Summons needs to be created (but not served) within 6 months. Max would normally be a year from the incident.

Pinch Flat · 25-11-2015 02:48PM

L1011 wrote: »

I never said it is wrong. Professionals cite things which turn out to be untrue all the time.

I did. It doens't.

IF everything is citing one source (which it appears they are) and IF that source is wrong - yes.

You are committing a massive logical fallacy here, the "2,000,000 Americans Can't Be Wrong" one. Just because you find vast numbers of references to a source, or vast numbers saying the same thing doesn't mean its right.

Have you actually read that graph?

It doesn't support your argument.

suggests a fatality rate of ~45% (not 90%) with a margin of error allowance for 20%-70% (still not 90%) for 40mph.

Compare to the value range for 30mph and you don't get the stated difference of 90% to 50% either.

If you read the page before that, it says 50%.

Are you going to rely on your fallacious "ROSPA and the experts say 90 so 90 it is" or this new document that says 50, then?

So to summarize, everyone's wrong except our Johnny. What's your own view on the amount of pedestrians likely to be killed at 40mph / 60kph? is it a lot less than the rest of the world think?

This link puts it at between 83 - 85%, citing two different sources.

http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

L1011 · 25-11-2015 02:53PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So to summarize, everyone's wrong except our Johnny.

No - to summarise: you don't understand statistics and the need to reference research very well, if at all.

You may want to note - again - that I've never actually said the quotes are wrong. You've invented that yourself to try argue against it. I've said that nobody at all has provided an actual reference and that the sources provided so far have all been irrelevant or mis-cited.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What's your own view on the amount of pedestrians likely to be killed at 40mph / 60kph? is it a lot less than the rest of the world think?

I'd have gone somewhat similar to the research you actually quoted without reading - maybe 50%, and probably about half that at 30mph. That's guesswork, but it appears to be fairly educated guesswork.

The "9 out of 10" 'statistic' (that isn't a statistic) entered peoples minds due to an emotive ad campaign in the UK, not research. It appears that (same source as above) that even in the 1970s before severe changes to vehicle standards were made for pedestrian protection it wasn't even 90% then.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

This link puts it at between 83 - 85%, citing two different sources.

http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

One from 1992 that I can't find the actual document for; the other (which is actually citing a source from 1991 that I also can't get the document for - sometimes I wish I was still in college) is inaccurately cited by your source - its 83% at 45mph. (http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/pedspeed/PEDSPEED.PDF)

Please apply some basic research before citing secondary sources as gospel.

Pinch Flat · 25-11-2015 03:02PM

L1011 wrote: »

I'd have gone somewhat similar to the research you actually quoted without reading - maybe 50%, and probably about half that at 30mph.

Hey look I'm just a random poster here with no particular safety expertise - If it was my full time job to post here or I was preparing an academic paper or research in road safety, yeah sure I'd be reading everything word for word. But I have to say I'm still satisfied that my own search still brings out that 90% of pedestrians are killed at 40 mph / 60 kph. I'd like to see someone put up a strong argument against this.

All this stemmed from your own reluctance to accept a primary reference, requesting a secondary one referenced to be backed up. In truth, I've no idea where the ROSPA reference is - perhaps it's buried in some publication on a server somewhere. Or perhaps write to the RSA and ask for sight of the publication?

L1011 wrote: »

The "9 out of 10" 'statistic' (that isn't a statistic) entered peoples minds due to an ad campaign in the UK, not research. It appears that (same source as above) that even in the 1970s before severe changes to vehicle standards were made for pedestrian protection it wasn't even 90% then.

Ah ok. Have you a link to back this up? :pac:

L1011 · 25-11-2015 03:06PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Hey look I'm just a random poster here with no particular safety expertise - If it was my full time job to post here or I was preparing an academic paper or research in road safety, yeah sure I'd be reading everything word for word. But I have to say I'm still satisfied that my own search still brings out that 90% of pedestrians are killed at 40 mph / 60 kph. I'd like to see someone put up a strong argument before this.

You can satisfy yourself all you want based on search results, but its hideous scientific practice. You can find yourself lots and lots of things in search results that are completely untrue. I'm pretty sure you can satisfy yourself that Prince is down a few ribs, Marc Almond had his stomach pumped and Richard Gere does unspeakable things with gerbils based on search results.

When you get in to fallacious beliefs its even worse. Snopes only covers pop culture beliefs but take a quick look through there and see how much of it you can find enough "data" in a search to "support".

Pinch Flat wrote: »

All this stemmed from your own reluctance to accept a primary reference, requesting a secondary one referenced to be backed up.

Nobody has ever provided a primary source for the 90%, as yet. I asked for a primary source as someone was citing a known poor secondary source. This is normal practice.

You don't seem to understand what primary and secondary sources actually mean.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

In truth, I've no idea where the ROSPA reference is - perhaps it's buried in some publication on a server somewhere. Or perhaps write to the RSA and ask for sight of the publication?

The likelyhood is the RSA were "satisfied by their own search" that threw up lots of non cited results. The ROTR is full of inaccuracies.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ah ok. Have you a link to back this up? :pac:

The reference is in text you linked to earlier, as I said in my post!!

If you don't want to actually read what you're using as references why are you continuing to use them?

Madd Finn · 25-11-2015 03:10PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

This what I love about Boards. Someone decides the reference is not good enough (primary versus secondary) then expects the poster that posted the information to scurry around and try and find the exact ROSPA reference that the RSA used to quote the 90% of figures.

Er no. I asked you where you got those figures from because my first search for similar figures presented hard statistical data which challenged them. If you want to state something as a fact, you should be expected to back it up. The more certain you are to begin with, the less "scurrying round" you have to do to vindicate yourself.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yet, when you google "Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed", you get refrences to the Gardai who quote this, http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=6609&Lang=1, a medical professional who deals with casualties in road accidents http://rsa.ie/Global/Presentations/Dr%20%C3%81ine%20Carroll's%20presentation.pdf, local authorithy http://www.roadsafetymayo.ie/CausesofCollisions/ and virtually every news article referenceing this statement .Are we to draw a conclusion that they're all wrong?

Ever watched the program QI? A widely believed "fact" can often be a misunderstanding, a false truism or just a plain lie. I bet that statement would be one of the things that would result in the alarm going off and another massive set of negative points for Alan Davies.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Edit - And for the real pedants out there, the following link to an ROSPA publication states:

"Research shows that 90% of people hit by vehicles at 40mph die, compared to 20% at 30mph and 2.5% at 20mph."

Fair enough. And other research flatly contradicts it. That's not pedantry. That's just pointing out facts.

Pinch Flat · 25-11-2015 03:12PM

L1011 wrote: »

Nobody has ever provided a primary source for the 90%, as yet. I asked for a primary source as someone was citing a known poor secondary source. This is normal practice.

You don't seem to understand what primary and secondary sources actually mean.

Sorry I didn't realize this was a personal campaign of yours - to find this elusive 90% figure. And lets not start the insults - I'm pretty familiar with Primary and Secondary sources from my own academic days.:rolleyes:

L1011 · 25-11-2015 03:13PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Sorry I didn't realize this was a personal campaign of yours - to find this elusive 90% figure.

Its not a campaign - its a request that something stated is backed up. Nothing more.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

And lets not start the insults - I'm pretty familiar with Primary and Secondary sources from my own academic days.:rolleyes:

You managed to confuse the two of them in a reply to me not ten minutes ago; and kept citing secondary sources when asked for primary. That's either a case of not understanding them or deliberately being obstructive.

Pinch Flat · 25-11-2015 03:22PM

L1011 wrote: »

Its not a campaign - its a request that something stated is backed up. Nothing more.

You managed to confuse the two of them in a reply to me not ten minutes ago; and kept citing secondary sources when asked for primary. That's either a case of not understanding them or deliberately being obstructive.

Ah look cool the jets. So in hind sight, the answer when requested for the primary source would be "I don't know. I didn't write the Rules of the Road, and I've no idea about the ROSPA document referenced within them. But many refernces on line state that 90% of pedestrians are killed by cars travelling at 40mph / 60kph - and these are cited by medical professionals, road saferty campaigners and other people more expert than I in road safety". So I tried to back up my argument, rather clumsily and hastily. And for that I'm truly sorry.

Madd Finn · 25-11-2015 04:18PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ah look cool the jets. So in hind sight, .....I tried to back up my argument, rather clumsily and hastily. And for that I'm truly sorry.

That's what you get for arguing with pedants!

Never bring a vague impression to a stats fight

Victor · 26-11-2015 03:04PM

Folks, lay off the bickering.

If you want a primary source, ask ROSPA.

Moderator

Snickers Man · 27-11-2015 01:23PM

realdanbreen wrote: »

My own view would be that the more times that you are caught the higher the fine should be. You have been fined three times which I would imagine means that you are speeding on a regular basis and only get caught a fraction of the time. You need to wise up before you injure somebody.

Well to be fair the penalty points system does have a built-in deterrence to repeat offending in that an accumulation of points will eventually lead to a loss of licence.

Furthermore, long before you get to that stage, you will have attracted the negative attention of insurance companies. Although they tend to ignore four points or fewer, try getting a cheap deal with six points on your licence. Not going to happen.

savagethegoat · 27-11-2015 01:31PM

shouldn't it be the case that the fine and points should reflect the degree of speeding.?

magicbastarder · 27-11-2015 01:50PM

well, afaik, if you're doing 100 in a 50 zone, you can be done for dangerous driving, rather than just speeding.

Madd Finn · 27-11-2015 05:42PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, afaik, if you're doing 100 in a 50 zone, you can be done for dangerous driving, rather than just speeding.

Rule of Thumb in UK is that if you are doing more than 30mph (they still use miles) in excess of limit you're banned automatically. Which would correspond to doing 100kph in a 50kph zone (ie 62.5kph in a 31.25kph zone)

Going over 100mph on a UK motorway would get you a ban too. Assuming the police in their Range Rover could catch you in your Porsche

Madd Finn · 07-12-2015 08:31PM

savagethegoat wrote: »

shouldn't it be the case that the fine and points should reflect the degree of speeding.?

Well that's one idea. And not a bad one.

Here, however is a really stupid one from the head of the Road Safety Authority.

Apparently the wealthier you are, the more you should pay. So rich guy in a Jag doing 60 in a 50 pays more than a skanger in a 10 year old Audi bombing along the same street at 120.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Alun · 07-12-2015 08:39PM

If you really were a Madd Finn you'd know that's exactly what they do in your home country, Finland, that is

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454

Victor · 07-12-2015 10:40PM

Madd Finn wrote: »

Apparently the wealthier you are, the more you should pay. So rich guy in a Jag doing 60 in a 50 pays more than a skanger in a 10 year old Audi bombing along the same street at 120.

Why should a richer person be able to buy themselves out of criminal responsibility?

08-12-2015 12:35AM

Victor wrote: »

Why should a richer person be able to buy themselves out of criminal responsibility?

They have the same criminal responsibility as anyone else. They're just more able to pay the fine. Not sure why that's a problem for you.

Victor · 08-12-2015 12:42AM

Deleted User wrote: »

They have the same criminal responsibility as anyone else. They're just more able to pay the fine. Not sure why that's a problem for you.

As the fine might mean nothing to them, they can continue to speed and not alter their behaviour. The normal purpose of fines or any other sanction is to change behaviour.

Is it worth while contesting a fixed-penalty notice speeding fine?

Comments