Distracting speedos and built-in satnavs: law?

Car_54

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

While I appreciate that, realistically, it's unlikely to be fined for driving at 23 in a 20mph zone, the fact remains that the law would specifically allow it!

Thinking of it from another angle: since the world is full of idiots, shouldn't we limit the chances idiots get of hurting other people?

You admit it's unlikely (in reality, vanishingly unlikely). Also, there is no likelihood of an income-related fine unless your speed is grossly excessive, or you choose to refuse a course or fixed penalty. And yet you say "I find myself checking the speedometer way more frequently".

That seems illogical, but perhaps your last para contains the explanation.;)

marlot

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

......the driver would need to take his/her eyes off the road completely in order to look at the sat-nav....

Hey - I passed you on the motorway yesterday. At least I assume it was you. In a MINI, with a stick on satnav positioned right in front of the driver, about halfway up the windscreen.

AdrianC

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

But, in most cars I have seen, these built-in satnavs tend to be placed in between the driver and the front passenger, so that the driver would need to take his/her eyes off the road completely in order to look at the sat-nav.

Good. MUCH safer place for them than the halfwits who slap the damn things right in their line of vision.

you could be fined a percentage (up to 50%?) of weekly earnings for going just 1mph above the limit

No, you can't.

SouthLondonUser

@Marlo, @AdrianC, I suppose you were both off sick when the teacher at school explained the difference between bottom right of the windscreen (which is the position I think makes the most sense, as it's close to the line of sight without blocking it) and middle of the windscreen (yes, of course I agree, placing a satnav there is stupid and dangerous). But fear not, googling these terms should give you a pretty good idea of the difference.

SouthLondonUser

AdrianC wrote: »

No, you can't.

That was not my understanding based on the press coverage last year; of course I fully appreciate I may be wrong / may remember incorrectly / the press may have been wrong etc, so can someone please elaborate on how it works?

caprikid1

I'm assuming your friend was not on a pedestrian crossing ?


Probably too busy staring a mobile phone to notice the traffic, legal for pedestrians but not drivers.

AdrianC

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

That was not my understanding based on the press coverage last year

The coverage was abysmally poor, even by the standards of the British press.

so can someone please elaborate on how it works?

Simply, there's no real change from before...

No action taken below roughly 10%+2mph.
Course up to a certain level, if eligible.
Fixed penalty up to a certain (higher) level, if eligible.
If it goes to court, there are sentencing bands, depend on how much over the limit.

All that changed last year was that the two bands increased to three, so the highest speeds see a higher fine - which is calculated as a %age of income. They're standard criminal justice fine bands.


is still as applicable as ever.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/speeding-revised-2017/
lists the speeds for bands.

This describes it all sanely.
https://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesocial/news-and-views/news/2017/april/top-level-speeding-fines-rise-today

unholyangel

I think what other posters are getting at is that the issue is bad drivers. Lots of people use sat nav in the centre every single day without getting into an accident.

If your friend was hit by a driver looking at his sat nav, it wouldn't matter where its placed because the muppet obviously gave more than a glance/wasnt aware of his surroundings/wasn't driving with due care. Reminds me of the people who drive onto railway tracks "because the satnav told me to". Some people just shouldn't be on the road.

I have been driving for years in cars where the speedo & sat nav are in the centre and although it took a few weeks to get used to looking to the left instead, I much prefer it now as the drivers view of the road ahead is less obstructed. But then I dont do silly things like trying to programme the satnav while I'm driving - I either get my passenger to do it or I'll pull over.

Car_54

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

That was not my understanding based on the press coverage last year; of course I fully appreciate I may be wrong / may remember incorrectly / the press may have been wrong etc, so can someone please elaborate on how it works?

Last year there were some changes to the sentencing guidelines for magistrates, which were widely - and often wrongly - reported, with some sensational headlines. The changes mainly affected only the worst offenders.

The vast majority of speeding offences never see a magistrate. They are dealt with by the offer of a course, or a fixed penalty (£100). This has not changed at all.

And BTW all fines in the courts are income-related, and have been for decades.

TooManyPoints

“…you could be fined a percentage (up to 50%?) of weekly earnings for going just 1mph above the limit,”

Leaving aside the fact that such an offence would normally be dealt with by a Speed Awareness Course or Fixed Penalty (depending on the driver's eligibility for either) please find me some evidence showing that a driver has faced prosecution for exceeded the limit by 1mph. The normal starting point for enforcement is (Limit +10% +2mph). I have seen plenty of prosecutions brought and fixed penalties issued but I have never seen a driver face action for travelling below the guideline allowance. I accept that you say one “could” be fined for exceeding the limit by 1mph. In practice one would not.

To understand why the “tolerance” is not embedded in the law you need to understand why it is allowed. It is allowed to avoid frivolous challenges based on the accuracy of measurements from clogging up the courts. It is far more difficult to cast doubt on evidence that shows the driver was exceeding the limit by more than 10% than it is with evidence that shows he was exceeding the limit by 1mph. To embed the tolerance in law would create a new limit and then you’d be back to the same problem the tolerance is in place to avoid. The offence is exceeding the limit, not travelling at xx mph. If a driver challenges an allegation of doing 35 in a 30 limit the court is more likely to accept that the measurement was accurate enough to show he exceeded 30mph than if he was accused of travelling at 31mph.

Having said that, the person who came up with the idea of installing a multi-function, multi-menu touch screen device within reach of the driver of a car whilst it is in motion should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.