The "myth" of motorway speed tolerance

DigForVictory

All the van based camera traps I've seen have had some kind of formal logo on the side. The ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Reader) traps however looked far more innocuous - & since I was taxed & insured, were harmless to me.

All being well this will have been an ANPR check, which you should have passed!

agrinnall

missile wrote: »

Speedos are more accurate than you suggest.

Not in most cars I've ever owned - I'd say at least 5% out is more likely than not.

iolanthe07

It would very unusual, and really bad luck, to be prosecuted for doing 75 mph on a motorway (unless there were other factors) - especially as your true speed was probably around 71 or 72. I maintain around 80 - 85 (indicated) and lots of traffic storms past me.

Hanky_Panky

I did the speed awareness course last year and we did have white van man there who was booked for 72 on the motorway. We did all joke that it was probably the manner of 72, like was he in reverse .

shaun_from_Africa

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I did the speed awareness course last year and we did have white van man there who was booked for 72 on the motorway.

If he was telling the trutha bout the speed then it's almost guaranteed that the case would have been kicked out of court if he decided to defend it.

A 2mph figure at 70mph is outside of the recognised tollerance of the equipment that is currently in use in the UK.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2013/201305-uoba-joining-forces-safer-roads.pdf

Iceweasel

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I did the speed awareness course last year and we did have white van man there who was booked for 72 on the motorway. We did all joke that it was probably the manner of 72, like was he in reverse .

Quite frankly I don't believe that the speed was the sole factor in that prosecution.

He just MUST have done something else in addition.

Aretnap

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I did the speed awareness course last year and we did have white van man there who was booked for 72 on the motorway.

I would be sceptical of that. An ex-traffic cop on another forum mentioned that he's run a few courses, and at the start of one of them he went round the room and asked everybody what speed they'd been caught at. In fact, he knew exactly what speed they'd been caught at, because all the speeds were listed on the register. A good half of the attendees claimed they'd been caught at a lower speed than they actually had.

So unless he actually brought the NIP with him, it didn't happen.

Mark_Mark

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

If he was telling the trutha bout the speed then it's almost guaranteed that the case would have been kicked out of court if he decided to defend it.

A 2mph figure at 70mph is outside of the recognised tollerance of the equipment that is currently in use in the UK.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2013/201305-uoba-joining-forces-safer-roads.pdf

But that's just a guide, either the equipment is within calibration or it isn't. So it matters not that the speed is 72 or 102, the court would accept the quoted speed.

And it's just for England and Wales not the UK.

jimjames

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I did the speed awareness course last year and we did have white van man there who was booked for 72 on the motorway. We did all joke that it was probably the manner of 72, like was he in reverse .

It might actually be true.

The limit on a motorway isn't always 70. What if he was doing 72 through a contraflow or roadworks with a 50 limit? More what he didn't say than what he did!

Mark_Mark

jimjames wrote: »

It might actually be true.

The limit on a motorway isn't always 70. What if he was doing 72 through a contraflow or roadworks with a 50 limit? More what he didn't say than what he did!

What if the motorway had a permanent 50 limit?