A tip incase anyone gets caught 'speeding'

milkydrink

taxiphil wrote: »

One of the main reasons I'm against speed cameras is that honest motorists are the only ones caught and punished.

When dishonest motorists (i.e. the criminal element) get flashed by a camera, they get away totally scot free if:

1. They are displaying false number plates, or:
2. They are driving a stolen vehicle, or:
3. They have failed to register themselves as keeper of the vehicle with the DVLA.

And by the government's own admission there are hundreds of thousands of vehicles that fall into the categories above.

You could even argue that the current system of putting machines in charge of policing the roads actually encourages criminals to display false plates and/or fail to register themselves as the vehicle's keeper.

I'm all in favour of making the roads safer by rooting out the dangerous drivers, but I'm convinced that the only way of achieving this is with intelligent human policing.

:T :T :T :beer: :beer: :beer: :A :A :A

SO TRUE

Need_More_Money_2

kimevans wrote: »

I have a notice of intended proscution for doing 36 mph in a 30 (a desserted industrial estate on a Saturday afternoon:mad: ).

So I was allowed 30 + 10 % + 2 = 35mph, so I'm being done for 1 mph:mad: .

The 10% + 2mph is to take into account the uncertainty in your speedometer and of the camera. You might've been doing less than 36mph but you might've been doing more. The threshold has to be set somewhere and this is how it is set. Although it is only guidance as I understand it.
I'd prefer it if they set sensible speed limits in the first place

ronaldo175

I spoke to a traffic officer a few months ago, he said it was 15%.

So you can get done for doing 35 in a 30 zone.

tomstickland

The 10% + 2mph is not the law. You commit a crime if you exceed the speed limit by 1mph. Since speedos overread, 40 indicated is usually about 35mph.

hjb123

kimevans wrote: »

I have a notice of intended proscution for doing 36 mph in a 30 (a desserted industrial estate on a Saturday afternoon:mad: ).

So I was allowed 30 + 10 % + 2 = 35mph, so I'm being done for 1 mph:mad: .

No, you were 6mph over the limit! In my opinion over the limit is over the limit.

I got done for speeding just over 4 years ago, admitted it and paid the fine

Need_More_Money_2

hjb123 wrote: »

No, you were 6mph over the limit! In my opinion over the limit is over the limit.

I got done for speeding just over 4 years ago, admitted it and paid the fine

She might've been 6 mph over the limit, she might not. Depends on the accuracy of the measurement - and there is no such thing as a perfectly acurate measurement
The idea of 'doing' people for being very slightly over the limit seems ridiculous though. Do we really want people driving around watching the speedo instead of the road, for fear of doing even 1mph over the speed limit.

hjb123

Oh yeah I can perfectly understand that doing people for just over the limit isnt right however there should be clear paremeters to say what is right and what isnt. Personally I think people should be dont for doing 10% or more over the limit

Need_More_Money_2

hjb123 wrote: »

Oh yeah I can perfectly understand that doing people for just over the limit isnt right however there should be clear paremeters to say what is right and what isnt. Personally I think people should be dont for doing 10% or more over the limit

That is essentially what the guidance says, apparently taking into account the errors in the measurement technique. I'm not sure whether they actually do take all the possible errors into account though

milkydrink

Need_More_Money wrote: »

She might've been 6 mph over the limit, she might not. Depends on the accuracy of the measurement - and there is no such thing as a perfectly acurate measurement
The idea of 'doing' people for people very slightly over the limit seems ridiculous though. Do we really want people driving around watching the speedo instead of the road, for fear of doing even 1mph over the speed limit.

Absolutely, I drive that way a lot & now I pass with one eye on the road & one on the speedometer.
I think points per miles per hour might be a good idea, like 1 point per 5 mph.
The way it is now there is no difference in law between me doing 36 mph in a 30 and 59 mph in a 30, which is mad.
The area is actually an industrial estate & almost deserted at the weekend I might add. I think a little common sense should be applied at times. Get the idiots who race past schools & down residential roads.

Throbbe

Need_More_Money wrote: »

That is essentially what the guidance says, apparently taking into account the errors in the measurement technique. I'm not sure whether they actually do take all the possible errors into account though

Generally the most significant error results from the measuring device being off-line from the direction of travel. However, this always reduces the 'observed' speed.

In a past life I used to measure vehicle speeds with a gun, and while it is possible to get errors, either deliberately, or through poor use, a trained operator can avoid them.

The ACPO guidelines are more about speedo error and giving people a little bit of leeway.