Points on your license.

[dirtysanta]

A common msapprehension. You are NOT allowed to go over the posted limit at all - 41mph in a 40mph limit is an offence for which you could be prosecuted in theory.

BUT, in order to provide drivers with a reasonable margin for error (including the inaccuracies in speedometers which, incidentally, are now much more reliable than they used to be) there is a pretty standard policy not to prosecute if the speed is less than 10% over the limit. In some force areas it is even more (I have seen a policy of 10% plus a further 5mph). But policy is not law, and you could be successfully prosecuted at any speed over the limit. Being an absolute offence (i.e. no intention needed) the fact that you didn't realise you were speeding because your speedometer was wrong would be entirely irrelevant.

Your prosecution was within the terms of the policy. I have heard of prosecutions at 45mph in a 40 limit before.

Quite. I was sent a summons for 34 ina 30. !!!
I sent off a letter requesting all sort of imfomation in request for a certificate of calabration for the camera etc etc. The usual stalling tactics. This took 6 months. They eventually sent me the calabration certificate that included a covering letter stating that the camera was accurate at the time but due to the amount of time since the offense they wouldnt be perusing me any futher.

It pays the try and fight these things sometimes. I thought 4 mph was little harsh. If the calaration had been out my a minute amount it could of made me seem like i was driving 1-2 mph faster than i should.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Would be pretty irrelevant if you did prove the road markings were inaccurate by more than 10%. They are a secondary means of roughly confirming the actual speed measurement made by the camera equipment itself. They are not the primary evidence themselves.

I always thought it was the other way around!

Ah well, there's precious few GATSOs round here, anyway - it's mostly "Speed Reduction Officers" in talivans with LTi 20/20 gear...

 

[detective-boy]

Right, you lot! I'm holding you all personally responsible!

All this talking about speeding and speeding tickets recently ... and now I've got my first three points ever ... You've fucked up the karma, that's what you've done! (Out of all the coppers in all the world I happen to encounter the traffic patrol cop with the probationer on traffic attachment, keen to teach him all there is to know about using his rinky-dinky little radar gun )

 

[djbombscare]

OOOooops thats naughty


So tell us all was it a fair cop or revenue raising ?

 

[astral]

welcome to the club

So how fast were you going?

 

[trashpony]

Right, you lot! I'm holding you all personally responsible!

All this talking about speeding and speeding tickets recently ... and now I've got my first three points ever ... You've fucked up the karma, that's what you've done! (Out of all the coppers in all the world I happen to encounter the traffic patrol cop with the probationer on traffic attachment, keen to teach him all there is to know about using his rinky-dinky little radar gun )

Sorry but

 

[pembrokestephen]

Right, you lot! I'm holding you all personally responsible!

All this talking about speeding and speeding tickets recently ... and now I've got my first three points ever ... You've fucked up the karma, that's what you've done! (Out of all the coppers in all the world I happen to encounter the traffic patrol cop with the probationer on traffic attachment, keen to teach him all there is to know about using his rinky-dinky little radar gun )

OK, now you need to go to www.pepipoo.com

It's probably too late for some of the advice, but they have a NIP Wizard thing there that can be helpful.

www.safespeed.co.uk is also interesting, as well as being a worthwhile campaigning organisation.

Welcome to the Dark Side

 

[detective-boy]

So tell us all was it a fair cop or revenue raising ?

Bit of both, really. It's was 30 limit residential road between the centre of Epsom and Epsom Downs where there are very few hazards, rarely any traffic to talk of and it's one of those really wide roads which it's sort of psychologically impossible to do 30 on. It's got a virtual zero accident rate ... but what it has got is a load of rich, posh residents who constantly whinge at the local police to "do something" about the traffic (they even have one of those "Community SpeedWatch things).

It's easy pickings for speed enforcement and that's why the traffic patrol took his probationer there to learn about it (you don't want to spend all day pissing about and finding nothing to do, do you?).

Was clocked at 53 accelerating away from a mini-roundabout uphill - doing the old accelerate up and then ease off to a cruising speed so an FPN is fair enough. Wouldn't normally peak that high but had had a particularly frustrating time through Epsom town centre (narrow roads, no space for filtering at lights, etc.) which I normally avoid at 9am.

Bearing in mind the officer doing the ticket was a new boy I had a good old look at the details but it seems he's learned how to fill them in properly already! (Did discover that both parts of Surrey Police's endorsable FPNs had "Police/CTO Copy" on them though - their Ticket Office manager went and looked at one and said "Bloody hell, no-ones noticed that before! I'll give the printers a bollocking!").

 

[djbombscare]

Unlucky man.

But 53 in a 30 thats a bit naughty

 

[detective-boy]

But 53 in a 30 thats a bit naughty

It was a peak after acceleration (as the traffic patrol guy acknowledged) and probably lasted for no more than a few yards before dropping back down, rather than my steady speed along the road (which would normally be somewhere more like 38 or 40 on that bit). If it had been my steady speed he'd probably have summonsed rather than issued an FPN to be honest.

 

[pembrokestephen]

It was a peak after acceleration (as the traffic patrol guy acknowledged) and probably lasted for no more than a few yards before dropping back down, rather than my steady speed along the road (which would normally be somewhere more like 38 or 40 on that bit). If it had been my steady speed he'd probably have summonsed rather than issued an FPN to be honest.

Ah, I think I know that road. It's always been a bit of a favourite for the local old bill to do a bit of speeding patrols - my ex-father-in-law got caught there.

It's one of those roads that looks like it should/could be a 40...

 

[pembrokestephen]

It was a peak after acceleration (as the traffic patrol guy acknowledged) and probably lasted for no more than a few yards before dropping back down, rather than my steady speed along the road (which would normally be somewhere more like 38 or 40 on that bit). If it had been my steady speed he'd probably have summonsed rather than issued an FPN to be honest.

Well, that was what I was assuming I'd end up having to say regarding the offence I just got acquitted on: having gone back over the road, I know there's no way I could have been doing a steady 40, but - barring inaccuracies in their measuring equipment - the only way I could conceive that I had been doing that speed would have been while changing up, as it was a long uphill run, and I might well have late-changed from 2nd to 3rd, and spent a few seconds doing much more than 30.

This is the problem with non-discretionary enforcement of speeding, whether it's cameras or coppers, though I would have hoped that a police officer might have been a bit more inclined to be tolerant/reasonable.

It also points up the problem with some of these speed limits which, as you mention, are often imposed at the whim of a local councillor, in this case presumably being keen to ingratiate himself to the residents. I have been reading some interesting stuff about how councils are imposing speed limits against the explicit advice of their own road safety professionals and that of the police.

Mind you, a worse road round there for nicks is the dual carriageway bit up Nork Hill, to/from Burgh Heath. It's next-to-impossible to do that at a nice steady 30, and you often get to feel the pressure when you've got a queue of people just busting to get past you, and often overtaking quite dangerously in order to do so...

 

[detective-boy]

Well, that was what I was assuming I'd end up having to say regarding the offence I just got acquitted on: having gone back over the road, I know there's no way I could have been doing a steady 40, but - barring inaccuracies in their measuring equipment - the only way I could conceive that I had been doing that speed would have been while changing up, as it was a long uphill run, and I might well have late-changed from 2nd to 3rd, and spent a few seconds doing much more than 30.

Thats the downside of single point speed detection equipment such as cameras / radar / laser guns - they just take a single "snapshot" speed and if that is over the limit, even for just a second or two or a yard or two, that is legally sufficient for a conviction.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Don't they compensate for that by allowing for some leeway, i.e. in a 30 mph zone they'll prosecute you for 55 but not for 35?

 

[pembrokestephen]

Don't they compensate for that by allowing for some leeway, i.e. in a 30 mph zone they'll prosecute you for 55 but not for 35?

ACPO guidelines say 10% over the limit + 2mph.

That's more for the benefit of the camera operators, though, as it gets around any danger of a good defence lawyer citing minor inaccuracies in the equipment, or saying that his client's speedo wasn't accurate enough to enable them to determine their speed with sufficient accuracy and precision.

What I think detective boy is talking about - and I agree wholeheartedly - is that is is perfectly reasonable, and not a great drawback, safety-wise, for someone to transiently exceed the speed limit by 10mph or more, but perhaps only for a few seconds: if you're accelerating up a hill, for example, you might let the vehicle "rev out" a bit further than you would on the flat, in order to maintain momentum during the gearchange. Your average (well, second-order differential) speed would not be profoundly affected by doing this, but if a wily camera operator or policeman were (say) monitoring your progress closely, they could choose just that moment to zap you, effectively misrepresenting a single transient peak in your speed as the overall averaged speed over a few seconds longer.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

They might if they were out to get you. But they're not, really, are they?

 

[pembrokestephen]

They might if they were out to get you. But they're not, really, are they?

Ah. I used to think like that. Until I started doing some research, and began to realise that the "safety" camera partnerships, in particular, are not above playing fast and loose with the regulations, if they think they can get away with it. And if they're not doing it organisationally, then there are certainly cases where it's clear that the camera operator has been stretching the point a bit.

And they are doing it organisationally. Admittedly, going by the "never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence" maxim, one might feel tempted to assume that the organisational procedures are just fucked up, but it is remarkable how often those organisational fuckups seem to just happen to mitigate in the partnership's favour, and not that of the motorist.

So no, they're not out to get me, personally. But anyone who thinks they're not out to get drivers as a group, either organisationally, or individually in their little talivans, is going to be in for a rude awakening...

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Tish.

 

[mattie]

They might if they were out to get you. But they're not, really, are they?

Why wouldn't they? Additional income handy, surely?

This policeman seems to think that revenue might be a factor (http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/thejournal/content_objectid=13555072_method=full_siteid=50081_headline=-Cameras-are-for-cash-name_page.html

 

[pembrokestephen]

Tish.

Mm?

 

[djbombscare]

Ah. I used to think like that. Until I started doing some research, and began to realise that the "safety" camera partnerships, in particular, are not above playing fast and loose with the regulations, if they think they can get away with it. And if they're not doing it organisationally, then there are certainly cases where it's clear that the camera operator has been stretching the point a bit.

And they are doing it organisationally. Admittedly, going by the "never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence" maxim, one might feel tempted to assume that the organisational procedures are just fucked up, but it is remarkable how often those organisational fuckups seem to just happen to mitigate in the partnership's favour, and not that of the motorist.

So no, they're not out to get me, personally. But anyone who thinks they're not out to get drivers as a group, either organisationally, or individually in their little talivans, is going to be in for a rude awakening...

I gotta admit that I feel they're out to get everyone really. They seem to hide behind hidden regulations and sneaky tactics that people dont know wether or not they've been knickde legally or not and can get away with it. When they are challenged they tend to back down fast. But how many people just go its not worth it and if I loose I wont get the fixed penalty and could end up with more points and a larger fine.

So I think they're just seeing how far they can bend the rules and how many people just go "Ok I've been knicked for speeding. .I'll just tick FP box"

Its revenue raising through and through IMO

 

[detective-boy]

Don't they compensate for that by allowing for some leeway, i.e. in a 30 mph zone they'll prosecute you for 55 but not for 35?

When it's a person rather than a camera you will usually get quite a lot of leeway (particularly if you are pleasant and contrite) and they usually operate in stretches of road where it is pretty much the steady speed they are measuring even with their snapshot (i.e. not acceleration or deceleration areas).

 

[pembrokestephen]

I gotta admit that I feel they're out to get everyone really. They seem to hide behind hidden regulations and sneaky tactics that people dont know wether or not they've been knickde legally or not and can get away with it. When they are challenged they tend to back down fast. But how many people just go its not worth it and if I loose I wont get the fixed penalty and could end up with more points and a larger fine.

So I think they're just seeing how far they can bend the rules and how many people just go "Ok I've been knicked for speeding. .I'll just tick FP box"

Its revenue raising through and through IMO

Absolutely. The first ticket I got was from a van parked on the far side of a dual carriageway: that is apparently specifically mentioned in the operating guidelines for these devices as Something Not To Be Done, but several partnerships are still trying their damndest to contest this in court. Similarly, camera operators are not supposed to use the equipment until they suspect a speeding offence is being committed, and invariably state this in all their evidence; yet, in cases where defendants have seen uncut video evidence, it has appeared that the operators have been speculatively watching vehicles.

Worse, many partnerships put huge obstacles in the path of any defendant attempting to see the evidence against them: you may not view the evidence until you have expressed your intention to defend a case in court, and even then, partnerships will delay disclosure until the last minute rather than give you a reasonable time to view the footage, or will refuse to allow you to view the footage anywhere than at their premises (which makes any kind of independent analysis next to impossible). Worse, some partnerships flatly refuse to allow footage to be viewed, and cite - incorrectly - Data Protection Act rules as their excuse: Hampshire Constabulary are particularly well-known offenders for this.

It seems to have come down to a question of gamesmanship: the partnerships take advantage of their better knowledge of the finer points of the law to run rings round defendants. They will often prosecute for speeding AND failure-to-identify the driver (S.172), even where evidence of the driver's ID has been sent, in a speculative attempt to get the driver to "negotiate down" his two possible convictions to one (this is, in effect, what happened to me: by insisting on pleading "not guilty" to both, I seem to have caused something of a problem, because they then dropped the speeding charge ).

There's definitely a case for enforcing speed limits and doing things to improve road safety. There may even be a case, in some circumstances, for discretionary use of cameras. But this headlong dash to extract as much money as possible from motorists, by any means they can get away with, is wrong, immoral, and fatally undermines the relationship motorists (who are also citizens) have with their police forces. Already, I believe that police forces are experiencing significant drops in the level of co-operation they get from motorists (in particular), and the IAM has cited claims that the motorist/police relationship is being irreparably damaged as a result of overzealous speeding enforcement alone.