# Speed camera



## alantt (May 3, 2014)

The speed camera situation is getting crazy, there are so many now that you end up spending more time looking at the speedo than where you a actually going , the enjoyment of driving is fading fast [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## Delta4 (Jun 19, 2015)

It is dependant on your location and the roads that you frequent, driving about in kent is easy compared to london for example.


----------



## datamonkey (Jan 23, 2012)

alantt said:


> The speed camera situation is getting crazy, there are so many now that you end up spending more time looking at the speedo than where you a actually going , the enjoyment of driving is fading fast [smiley=bigcry.gif]


You know I was thinking the other day how non-fun driving is these days compared to when I passed my test 100 years ago. At least it is in the South East anyway.

Driving around town you're lucky to get over 20mph just because of the sheer volume of traffic and so many roads have been slowed where 60mph is now 40mph, 40mph is 30mph and so on. Then like you mention speed cameras left, right and centre.

I do sometimes wonder why I bother having a TTS as I barely get to use its capabilities! Maybe I need to move the highlands!


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

Or do some track days


----------



## jjg (Feb 14, 2010)

The number of camera's is a pain, but is made worse by cars slowing to half the speed limit to drive through them!


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

jjg said:


> The number of camera's is a pain, but is made worse by cars slowing to half the speed limit to drive through them!


+1. Nearly went into the back of someone last week. It was a 40 zone and he was doing 40 but hit the brakes as he passed the speed camera and slowed to 25.

I was watching my speedo and had to hit the brakes as didn't expect him to slow down.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Shug750S said:


> jjg said:
> 
> 
> > The number of camera's is a pain, but is made worse by cars slowing to half the speed limit to drive through them!
> ...


Yep they can cause more problems than they solve but the government has to raise taxes some how :evil:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

YELLOW_TT said:


> Yep they can cause more problems than they solve but the government has to raise taxes some how :evil:


Surely an entirely voluntary tax is a good thing? :wink:


----------



## wlondoner (Feb 10, 2013)

These average speed camera things are the worse I'm looking at my speed more than the road


----------



## ldhxvs (Aug 18, 2016)

wlondoner said:


> These average speed camera things are the worse I'm looking at my speed more than the road


Yes they don't stop people speeding just another money stealing scam.
If they want you to go slow they shove some speed bumps on the road.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

jjg said:


> The number of camera's is a pain, but is made worse by cars slowing to half the speed limit to drive through them!


Definitely. Mind you I seem to get stuck behind these tossers who barely manage half the speed limit whether there's a camera or not.



wlondoner said:


> These average speed camera things are the worse I'm looking at my speed more than the road


Cruise control is your friend.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

wlondoner said:


> These average speed camera things are the worse I'm looking at my speed more than the road


I just stick cruise control on


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

ldhxvs said:


> wlondoner said:
> 
> 
> > These average speed camera things are the worse I'm looking at my speed more than the road
> ...


Don't get me started on these :evil:


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Spandex said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > Yep they can cause more problems than they solve but the government has to raise taxes some how :evil:
> ...


It's not volantery when they change the rules with out informing people :evil:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

YELLOW_TT said:


> It's not volantery when they change the rules with out informing people :evil:


Eh? Driving above the speed limit is voluntary. Which rules changed?


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Spandex said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > It's not volantery when they change the rules with out informing people :evil:
> ...


They lowered the prosecutions limit I only found out as my uncle was a police inspector and ex traffic cop he used to train the police drivers and even he was caught out by the change


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

YELLOW_TT said:


> They lowered the prosecutions limit I only found out as my uncle was a police inspector and ex traffic cop he used to train the police drivers and even he was caught out by the change


There's no 'prosecution limit'. There are guidelines which are used by the vast majority of forces for _enforcement_ (but can't be relied upon throughout the UK) which are the well known '10% + 2' but you can (and always could) be prosecuted for *anything* above the posted limit regardless of these guidelines. Regardless, if you stay on or below the limit you can't be prosecuted so it's still voluntary.

I don't have any time for people moaning about speed cameras. Speeding is a choice. The fact that we all choose to do it doesn't change anything. We know the risks so who's fault is it when we get caught?


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

If only everyone was as saintly and never did anything wrong or made a mistake :roll:


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Slightly different angle:

Why can't speed limits on certain roads at certain times of day be reviewed upwards?

For example an empty motorway in the middle of the night 70 seems rediculous. Remember the NSL limit was set decades ago. My first car was so bad (an old mk1 escort) it took forever to get to 70 and ages to stop. Modern cars now are a lot safer with better brakes etc. 85 on a motorway now seems to be the norm?

In France they even have different speed limits apply in the wet or dry. Much more sensible.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

YELLOW_TT said:


> If only everyone was as saintly and never did anything wrong or made a mistake :roll:


Didn't I just say *we* all speed? Nothing saintly about me, but that doesn't change the fact that we're doing it voluntarily. If we don't want to risk paying the 'tax', we have an easy way to avoid it. Acting like it's someone else's fault, or like we're being unfairly punished is ridiculous.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

We're never going to win on the speed limit side of things. There are too many NIMBYs and too few people who like to drive.

There is a secondary school near me who is petitioning for the speed limit to be dropped near it. The school has been there for decades and nobody can find any records of any accidents in any reasonable time period. Still, I'm sure it'll have a lot of support because, you know, children.

Who's going to fight it? When I was sat in the electric car forth in line of a mile long tailback behind a Smart car doing 45 along a dead-straight NSL roman road, _nobody_ attempted to work up the queue for twenty miles - despite decent spacing between vehicles and next to nothing oncoming. I often do this route in my TT and I always go for the overtake and it doesn't take long to shift past everybody, but it seems, most people are happy to plod along.


----------



## qooqiiu (Oct 12, 2007)

What's the worst road for this thing?

I nominate leek road near Alton towers. I counted 21 gatsos down that road and the road that leads onto it. In a stretch of road about 14 miles long. I couldn't believe it. One is located on the pavement slap bang outside a petrol station with a number of other signs very close to it.


----------



## jjg (Feb 14, 2010)

Shug750S said:


> Slightly different angle:
> 
> Why can't speed limits on certain roads at certain times of day be reviewed upwards?
> 
> ...


This would get my vote.


----------



## GaryG (Aug 21, 2016)

Spandex said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > If only everyone was as saintly and never did anything wrong or made a mistake :roll:
> ...


<rant>There are a few posts above that tend to indicate that it isn't really "voluntary", rather "involuntary'. Note those posts that mention "I spend more time staring at the speedo than the road."

A year back, I went on one of those "Speed Awareness" courses instead of getting points and a fine. There were about 12 of us there and all but one of them was a good driver. We all went off on a drive with a driving instructor. We all returned with the same story: "I spend more time staring at the speedo than the road." plus "no wonder the majority of accidents are below 30mph - people drift off to sleep."

The point is that if you are a reasonable driver, you drive reasonably and within the conditions - your concentration and experience tell you the safe speed, not the speedo. Note also the support for variable limits, which reflect this attitude.

So, 30/40/50/60/70 are arbitrary limits - simply round figures to make sign-writers' jobs easy. The involuntary part comes in when you are driving naturally - at your best - within the conditions - at your sharpest without any reckless or carelessness. That is 'involuntary' - it is the same way the craftsman can turn out a wonderful piece of work in 20 minutes whilst talking to you, as opposed to the average joe who would take 4 hours to turn out rubbish and make mistakes galore whilst reading the instructions time after time.

It is cycling without thinking about it. It's reading and writing - you do it naturally at the best speed.

Yes, there are idiots - but one size has never fitted all.</rant>


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Not sure I agree with all that, but regardless, it's still voluntary. You have a choice - you don't have to like any of the options, you don't have to agree with them and you don't have to think they're safe.

As for 'watching the speedo all the time', I don't buy that at all. If someone said "you have to drive along at exactly 40mph, maybe that would require excessive concentration, but that's not the case. If you *choose* not to risk prosecution then you can drive a few mph +/- the limit without any worries at all and with just an occasional glance at the speedo (no more dangerous than the occasional glances you're already giving your mirrors, right?)

Of course you can also *choose* to drive whatever speed you feel is safe for the road and conditions. This comes with the risk of getting caught, but the odds are on our side so we often take that chance.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

It is a choice, but it's not necessarily an easy choice for many people. Given that speeding is so very common, following the flow of traffic will likely cause you to speed, especially in lower-speed areas that fall foul of the 40mph club. On the flip side, if you drive on the safe side of a 20mph speed limit then you will be hounded by other road users.

If you're somebody with a strong will that doesn't get affected by how other people act then you might be ok with that, but we're inherently emotional beings and that is a tall order to ask of a lot of people. So whilst there is a technical choice, I'd say that's more of an illusion for most.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I'd say that someone who is weak willed enough to let other people dictate something as basic as the speed they drive at, shouldn't be driving at all.

But still, it's a choice.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Hah, I know _you_ would say that, but I'm sure you're savvy enough to know that most people aren't as strong willed as you.

To take it to an extreme, killing somebody is a choice. An easy one most days for most people, but if you're a soldier, maybe with iffy rules of engagement, the choice is still the same, but not necessarily one that is easy to make (or even get right).


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

Spandex said:


> I'd say that someone who is weak willed enough to let other people dictate something as basic as the speed they drive at, shouldn't be driving at all.
> 
> But still, it's a choice.


.....said the jobsworth :roll:

Geez.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> Hah, I know _you_ would say that, but I'm sure you're savvy enough to know that most people aren't as strong willed as you.
> 
> To take it to an extreme, killing somebody is a choice. An easy one most days for most people, but if you're a soldier, maybe with iffy rules of engagement, the choice is still the same, but not necessarily one that is easy to make (or even get right).


I wouldn't say I was particularly strong willed. I don't think you really have to be that strong willed to not get pushed into speeding by other people. Honestly, it's just another excuse, the same as "I'd spend more time looking at my speedo". The vast majority of people speed because that's how fast they want to go and they know there's not much risk of being caught. Thats fine, but have a little bit of conviction and back up your choices. If you get caught, suck it up.



leopard said:


> .....said the jobsworth :roll:
> 
> Geez.


That doesn't even make sense...


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

GaryG said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > YELLOW_TT said:
> ...


I did one of those speed awareness courses three years ago. 4 hours in a room listening to a jobsworth going on and on.

Only high point was he put a slide up and asked what speed we would be doing along that road, I said 20-25 and he said "no it's a 40 limit"

I said but what about the police van in the far distance parked half on the road, half on the verge, looks like there's been something happened.

What police van he said... I walked to the front and pointed it out - it was tiny and way off...

He looked at the slide again and said good spot, I've not noticed that before.

I went back to sleep until the session ended...


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> > .....said the jobsworth :roll:
> ...


Makes perfect sense from where I'm sitting...spare the official :lol:

Quote:

Jobsworth

noun BRITISH informal

" an official who upholds petty rules even at the expense of humanity or common sense."


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

leopard said:


> Makes perfect sense from where I'm sitting...spare the official :lol:
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


I'm not upholding any rules though (especially not in my post that you quoted when you inexplicably called me a jobsworth). I haven't commented on the 'rules' themselves, I've just said we have the choice whether to follow them or not. Do you actually disagree with that, or are you just wading in for no reason?

Perhaps you should stick to commenting on the actual topic (assuming you have an opinion). I won't hold my breath though.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

leopard said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > leopard said:
> ...


 [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Yes yes, I get it... if you don't grunt along with the "speed cameras are so unfair" brigade, you must love speed cameras, love speed limits, always stick to the limits and hate people who don't. Because your brains can't cope with the idea that you might actually have to take responsibility for your own decisions...

Dash thinks speeding is someone else's fault. Yellow thinks getting caught is someone else's fault. Leotard thinks... err.. oh no, he doesn't.

:roll:


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

Spandex said:


> Yes yes, I get it... if you don't grunt along with the "speed cameras are so unfair" brigade, you must love speed cameras, love speed limits, always stick to the limits and hate people who don't. Because your brains can't cope with the idea that you might actually have to take responsibility for your own decisions...
> 
> Dash thinks speeding is someone else's fault. Yellow thinks getting caught is someone else's fault. Leotard thinks... err.. oh no, he doesn't.
> 
> :roll:


No,our brains can't cope as to why you always present yourself as a priggish argumentator in any discussion you involve yourself with :roll:

Definition for you,so you can understand,

Quote:

" Priggish | Define Priggish at Dictionary.com
http://www.dictionary.com › browse › priggish
a person who displays or demands of others pointlessly precise conformity, fussiness about trivialities, or exaggerated propriety, especially in a self-righteous or irritating manner. Origin of prig1 Expand. 1560-1570. 1560-70; formerly, coxcomb; perhaps akin to prink. priggish, adjective "


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

leopard said:


> No,our brains can't cope as to why you always present yourself as a priggish argumentator in any discussion you involve yourself with :roll:
> 
> Definition for you,so you can understand,
> 
> ...


Very ironic. Which bit of what I've said do you disagree with? My money is on "none of it". :wink:


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

leopard said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Yes yes, I get it... if you don't grunt along with the "speed cameras are so unfair" brigade, you must love speed cameras, love speed limits, always stick to the limits and hate people who don't. Because your brains can't cope with the idea that you might actually have to take responsibility for your own decisions...
> ...


Now I know where I've met you before Spandex. You were in the Monty Python argument sketch .... :lol:


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

ZephyR2 said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


 :lol: 
He's also here on this clip....






Just for clarification the one on the right of the sofa facing us


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ZephyR2 said:


> Now I know where I've met you before Spandex. You were in the Monty Python argument sketch .... :lol:


I can see you're a laugh riot down the pub... :wink:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

If it wasn't for contrary points of view there would be little forum discussion and far less thought provocation and entertainment on here. I love the Monty Python argument sketch and tip my hat to masters of the art and those who sacrifice themselves in the furtherance of the discourse - for there in the lap of fait go I.
P.S. the escape route is pangolins!


----------



## alantt (May 3, 2014)

How on earth do you know weather you are speeding or not if you don't keep looking at the speedo :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

alantt said:


> How on earth do you know weather you are speeding or not if you don't keep looking at the speedo :roll:


Well, I do it by just occasionally glancing at the speedo whenever I feel that my speed has changed significantly. I judge this by looking out the big glass bit at the front (working on the assumption that the landscape is stationary and I'm moving).


----------



## alantt (May 3, 2014)

You are obviously a superior being if you can tell the difference between 30 and 35 mph by looking out of the window, I unfortunately need to check my speedo as I am not that gifted


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

alantt said:


> You are obviously a superior being if you can tell the difference between 30 and 35 mph by looking out of the window, I unfortunately need to check my speedo as I am not that gifted


Well, that's a different thing, isn't it. I can't tell whether I'm going 30 or 35 just by looking out the window, but if I know I was doing 30 the last time I checked the speedo, I sure as hell will notice a 17% increase in speed.

Anyway, you asked and I answered. That's how I do it.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

It's very easy to NOT notice your speed has crept up from 30 to 35 mph especially if you're on a gentle slope. Modern cars insulate you from the road so much these days.

Sent from my iPhone so this is what Autocorrect thinks I mean.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Spandex said:


> I sure as hell will notice a 17% increase in speed.


How about at 5mph? You can sure as hell tell the increase to 5.85mph? What a silly statement.

It is very easy to creep from 30 to 35mph without noticing, especially in modern cars like a seventeen year old TT. It's even easier to miss speed changes if you're focusing primarily on what's going on on the road.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> How about at 5mph? You can sure as hell tell the increase to 5.85mph?


No I can't (not that I said I could). I also can't notice the (17%) increase from 1mph to 1.17mph. I can notice the (17%) increase from 70mph to 81.9mph. Do you know how percentages work?


Dash said:


> What a silly statement.


Which one? The one where you moronically extrapolate a statement I made about a specific speed? Would you notice the 100% increase from 30mph to 60mph? Of course. So that means you'd notice the 100% change from 0.5mph to 1mph?? Idiot.



Dash said:


> It is very easy to creep from 30 to 35mph without noticing, especially in modern cars like a seventeen year old TT. It's even easier to miss speed changes if you're focusing primarily on what's going on on the road.


It IS very easy to creep to 35mph. It's also fairly easy to notice you've done it. But even if you don't notice, an occasional glance at the speedo will soon tell you. And don't worry, because in between you've been focusing primarily on what's going on on the road so you know you've not passed a speed camera in between your occasional glances at the speedo, right?

Seriously, driving at a relatively constant speed isn't that difficult is it?? You don't even need to be that accurate - enforcement doesn't start till 10%+2mph, so you have up to 34mph in a 30, 45mph in a 40, 78mph in a 70, etc. If you choose not to do those speeds, then that's absolutely fine - but like I said, it's a choice.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Spandex said:


> Dash said:
> 
> 
> > How about at 5mph? You can sure as hell tell the increase to 5.85mph?
> ...


And that's why they often site Speed cameras at the bottom of hills, to catch out people who were doing the limit and unconsciously sped up as they came down the hill. More cash for them...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Shug750S said:


> And that's why they often site Speed cameras at the bottom of hills, to catch out people who were doing the limit and unconsciously sped up as they came down the hill. More cash for them...


But on the flip side, if you're using cameras to encourage people to drive below the limit for safety reasons, it makes sense to site them in places that people often speed - whether they're doing it deliberately on a long straight or by accident on a long hill seems irrelevant from a safety point of view, right?

So, you can debate their motives (and I'm not sure either way really), but the placement of cameras would likely be the same whether they were out to make money or out to make people slow down for safety reasons.

But yes, it's obviously easier for your speed to increase on a downhill section of road. But given that we all know that, it's also likely that you look at your speedo more frequently on steeper hills and probably pay more attention to other clues, like what you can see, and your engine note, etc.


----------



## alantt (May 3, 2014)

What I have noticed is that speed camera vans seem to be positioned just after a blind bend where the speed limit has just changed. I have come across two of these lately and probably would of been caught ,if oncoming drivers hadn't warned me, as I hadn't reduced my speed quickly enough, so now I make sure I change speed much quicker when speed limits change, but I do need to look at my speedo to make sure I am at the correct speed when entering a lower speed limit


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Seriously, driving at a relatively constant speed isn't that difficult is it?? You don't even need to be that accurate - enforcement doesn't start till 10%+2mph, so you have up to 34mph in a 30, 45mph in a 40, 78mph in a 70, etc. If you choose not to do those speeds, then that's absolutely fine - but like I said, it's a choice.


So has there been a change in policy since you posted this .....  


Spandex said:


> There's no 'prosecution limit'. There are guidelines which are used by the vast majority of forces for _enforcement_ (but can't be relied upon throughout the UK) which are the well known '10% + 2' but you can (and always could) be prosecuted for *anything* above the posted limit regardless of these guidelines. Regardless, if you stay on or below the limit you can't be prosecuted so it's still voluntary.


----------



## Ian_W (Oct 19, 2008)

Shug750S said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Dash said:
> ...


Pretty sure I was snapped last week by a van stationed a hundred yards or so ahead of the down slope of a reasonably steep hill, not sure I was speeding as I wasn't glued to my speedo but wouldn't be surprised if my speed had crept up coming down the hill.

Nothing I can do about it now, pay the £100 and try and be more careful :roll:


----------



## alantt (May 3, 2014)

Hopefully you will be ok, if not they may give you the option of a speed awareness course, in saying that I was snapped a few years ago( first time in 20 years) and wasn't given that option, I think it's just he luck of the draw weather you get offered it or not.On my journey to work there are six fixed cameras and sometime the odd van , when I get to work sometimes I can't remember if I slowed for them or not, must be old age setting in , been alright so far but always expecting post :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ZephyR2 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, driving at a relatively constant speed isn't that difficult is it?? You don't even need to be that accurate - enforcement doesn't start till 10%+2mph, so you have up to 34mph in a 30, 45mph in a 40, 78mph in a 70, etc. If you choose not to do those speeds, then that's absolutely fine - but like I said, it's a choice.
> ...


Nope, not as far as I know. Both posts are still correct at this time. You know there's a difference between enforcement and prosecution, right?


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Spandex said:


> You don't even need to be that accurate - enforcement doesn't start till 10%+2mph, so you have up to 34mph in a 30, 45mph in a 40, 78mph in a 70, etc. If you choose not to do those speeds, then that's absolutely fine - but like I said, it's a choice.


Very strange when I quoted the 10%+ 2 enforcement you gave a very different answer stating there was no prosecutions limit just check out your reply on the next post


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Spandex said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > They lowered the prosecutions limit I only found out as my uncle was a police inspector and ex traffic cop he used to train the police drivers and even he was caught out by the change
> ...


Changing your tune as and when it suits on the 10% +2 using what ever argument takes your fancy to get a reaction


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

YELLOW_TT said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > You don't even need to be that accurate - enforcement doesn't start till 10%+2mph, so you have up to 34mph in a 30, 45mph in a 40, 78mph in a 70, etc. If you choose not to do those speeds, then that's absolutely fine - but like I said, it's a choice.
> ...


You've lost me. I can't find any post of yours here that mentions the 10%+2 enforcement guidelines - you mentioned prosecution limits and I replied to explain that prosecution can occur for any speed above the posted limit.

But in case I wasn't clear, these are the points I've made. None of which contradict each other:

1. You can be prosecuted for any speed above the posted speed limit.
2. Police forces and camera partnerships almost universally follow the ACPO guidelines for enforcement - these are the 10%+2mph rules that everyone hears about. So although you can be prosecuted for 31mph in a 30 limit, it would take an unusual set of circumstances for that to happen.
3. If you want to be 100% certain of avoiding prosecution, you can choose to drive at or below the limit.
4. If you want to be pragmatic, you can choose to drive 1mph below the enforcement guidelines of 10%+2.
5. If you choose to drive above the enforcement guidelines then don't blame other people when the gamble eventually doesn't pay off.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

YELLOW_TT said:


> Changing your tune as and when it suits on the 10% +2 using what ever argument takes your fancy to get a reaction


I've not changed my tune, you just didn't understand that there's a difference between enforcement and prosecution. That's despite me making it really really clear in my post which you've helpfully quoted above.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

All the above is somewhat irrelevant anyway as the speedo on most cars is usually inaccurate and tends to display a speed greater than the actual speed.

Sent from my iPhone so this is what Autocorrect thinks I mean.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Spandex said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > Changing your tune as and when it suits on the 10% +2 using what ever argument takes your fancy to get a reaction
> ...


So in one post you say you can be prosecuted for any speed over 30 in another you say you OK up to 34 but you haven't changed your tune


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Spandex said:


> ZephyR2 said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...





Spandex said:


> I've not changed my tune, you just didn't understand that there's a difference between enforcement and prosecution. That's despite me making it really really clear in my post which you've helpfully quoted above.


I think you're tying yourself up in knots here. You can't have prosecution without first having enforcement. So the statement about the lack of any prosecution limit is a mute point. The enforcement guidelines are the only relevant limits in this respect. 

Sent from my iPhone so this is what Autocorrect thinks I mean.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ZephyR2 said:


> All the above is somewhat irrelevant anyway as the speedo on most cars is usually inaccurate and tends to display a speed greater than the actual speed.


Not irrelevant, but definitely less clear cut. Although, I've coded a hidden feature on my car so I have the 'normal' speed on the gauge and the 'actual' speed in the digital display, so I can be more certain.


YELLOW_TT said:


> So in one post you say you can be prosecuted for any speed over 30 in another you say you OK up to 34 but you haven't changed your tune


How many times am I going to have to say this? Prosecution and enforcement are two different things. See below (or just ignore it, and ask me the same fecking question again, I guess)


ZephyR2 said:


> I think you're tying yourself up in knots here. You can't have prosecution without first having enforcement. So the statement about the lack of any prosecution limit is a mute point. The enforcement guidelines are the only relevant limits in this respect.


Not at all. Remember, you're not charged with exceeding the speed limit by a certain amount, you're simply charged with exceeding the speed limit. The amount by which you exceed it only affects the sentencing. It's an important distinction that should affect your driving behaviour in certain situations. Here's an example:

1. I'm driving along a dual carriageway in a 50 limit and see a speed camera. I know I can pass that camera at 56mph without any risk of it triggering (*enforcement* starts at 57mph). Maybe to add a safety factor I keep at 55mph, and cruise on through.

2. Same road, but instead of a camera I see a police car ahead of me, driving at 40ish. I cruise past at 55mph and they pull me over. They insist I was doing at least 60mph, and hand me a NIP. Now, worst case scenario, I can't prove they're mistaken and have to take it on the chin, but let's say I've got a fancy dashcam with burnt in gps speed. I can go to court and maybe I can show that I wasn't doing 60mph, but in doing so I have to show that I was still exceeding the limit and will still be *prosecuted*. Best case scenario, I ask for a 'Newton hearing' and plead guilty to speeding but get sentenced based on doing 55, not 60 (ok, I suspect the speed difference in this example wouldn't change the actual fine/points, but you get the point).

So yes, you can be prosecuted for a speed below the enforcement level, so in situations where you're not relying on the accuracy of a fixed or mobile camera speed measurement, you need to bear in mind that the enforcement guidelines won't save you. Not to mention the fact that these are *guidelines* only - they're at the officers discretion... if you do something that pisses him off, he might just decide that you don't deserve that discretion and he's perfectly within his rights to give you a ticket for any speed over the limit.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

I think we all have to bow down as Spandex is obviously an expert in all things never wrong and we will never be able to match his expertise. AKA typical key board warrior 
Bored with you now end of


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Spandex said:


> ZephyR2 said:
> 
> 
> > I think you're tying yourself up in knots here. You can't have prosecution without first having enforcement. So the statement about the lack of any prosecution limit is a mute point. The enforcement guidelines are the only relevant limits in this respect.
> ...


Gosh ! How long did it take you to contrive that convoluted and extremely unlikely scenario? :lol: 
Nevertheless the fact still remains that, even in those circumstances, you would not have been prosecuted if there had not been enforcement action, and there would not have been enforcement action if you had not exceeded the enforcement guidelines.
If you had merely exceeded the prosecution limit then no action would ever have been taken in the first place.

With regard to your Newton's hearing, a court would not accept the evidence of your true speed from the GPS reading on your dashcam, unless it was a professional device, certified for that purpose and could be shown to have been recently calibrated. 
Likewise if the police officer's device was so inaccurate as to read your speed as 60 mph when it was actually 55 mph then it too could easily be proven to be inadequate and not reliable enough to be used in a prosecution. Therefore in the absence of any verifiable evidence about your speed from either party the case would be thrown out. 
Do you want to have another shot at this? :lol:


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

YELLOW_TT said:


> I think we all have to bow down as Spandex is obviously an expert in all things never wrong and we will never be able to match his expertise. AKA typical key board warrior
> Board with you now end of


Hey, its "bored" not board. Change it quick. You don't want to invite criticism.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

ZephyR2 said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > I think we all have to bow down as Spandex is obviously an expert in all things never wrong and we will never be able to match his expertise. AKA typical key board warrior
> ...


 :lol: I have but its to late you've captured it for every one to see :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ZephyR2 said:


> Gosh ! How long did it take you to contrive that convoluted and extremely unlikely scenario? :lol:
> Nevertheless the fact still remains that, even in those circumstances, you would not have been prosecuted if there had not been enforcement action, and there would not have been enforcement action if you had not exceeded the enforcement guidelines.
> If you had merely exceeded the prosecution limit then no action would ever have been taken in the first place.
> 
> ...


It's not supposed to be a 'likely scenario', it's simply supposed to be a way to illustrate how prosecution is not tied to the same speeds given in the enforcement guidelines. And as I mentioned at the end, the guidelines are completely discretionary, so an officer can enforce any speed above the limit, should they feel it's appropriate. Cameras, on the other hand, will only apply the guideline limits.

As for newton cases, you should do some reading before making pronouncements like that. Newton cases get heard all the time, and often with much less compelling evidence than a dashcam. In fact judges can, and do, take the drivers word for it if they feel that they make a reasonable case - remember the driver is still pleading guilty, so this only affects the fine/points. If the police officer can't present solid evidence of the actual speed (they weren't using a camera and couldn't do a follow check, for example), but the driver is willing to admit that they exceeded the limit, a judge might be inclined to take the middle ground.

As for your last point, you can be prosecuted for speeding based on one police officer observing you with just his uncalibrated eyeballs as he stands at the roadside. That's why newton cases exist. If cases got thrown out without evidence from approved devices, and drivers needed similarly approved devices to dispute a speed, when would a newton case ever apply?? As I said, you need to do some reading if you're going to try to sound smug about this stuff.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

YELLOW_TT said:


> I think we all have to bow down as Spandex is obviously an expert in all things never wrong and we will never be able to match his expertise. AKA typical key board warrior
> Bored with you now end of


You certainly have a knack for making other people look like experts. I should probably thank you.

End of.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Here you go Zephr - a genuine case to get your research started. It covers the results of the case too, if you read to the end (or just skip to post #104):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81268

It demonstrates a few points. Firstly, that you can be prosecuted for speeding without a reading from an approved device (the officers statement didn't even give an exact speed - they simply said they estimated it at at least 80mph). Secondly, that you don't need measurements from an approved device in order to dispute an officers statement successfully (the court just accepted the drivers argument with no additional evidence at all).

So, prosecution successful (driver found guilty) based only on two officers opinion of speeding, and newton plea successful based only on drivers opinion of actual speed. Not far off my contrived, convoluted and unlikely example :wink:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Spandex said:


> Dash said:
> 
> 
> > How about at 5mph? You can sure as hell tell the increase to 5.85mph?
> ...


You're demonstrating exactly how percentages work, which is why the idiot is the person who uses a percentage as a headline statement. Piping up about how you'd notice a 17% increase at some speeds but then backtracking on others makes it a meaningless measurement.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

An interesting case. I don't have the time to read through it all but it sounds like its the police's estimate of speed vs the defendants estimate of speed. With the absence of any hard evidence on either side the CPS capitulated following the Newton hearing. In fact it sounds like that case had a number of details that could be challenged by both sides. And this is the weakness of relying only upon an officers personal estimation of speed.
Different matter though if the prosecution's evidence had been based upon a speed camera etc. as most such prosecutions are, and hence my generalisation. 
Thinking about your dash-cam evidence I suspect that it would be quite easy to take a video recording without any speed and to superimpose any speed of your liking upon it. I'm surprised that someone hasn't come up with a dash-cam that burns the actual speed limit into the video rather than your actual speed. So would it be right for the court simply accept a defendant's dash-cam footage, as supplied without testing the evidence, as should be done?

As I understand it a Newton hearing is only conducted if the outcome will make a significant difference to the sentence, once the defendant has already pleaded guilty. In your example, which is a dispute about doing 55 mph or 60 mph, the sentence in either case would not be significantly different so a Newton hearing should not be allowed.

But going back to the original point none of these fictitious proceedings would have taken place if the enforcement limits had not been exceeded. Even if the Newton hearing scenario was conducted the fact still remains that proceedings would not have been taken in the first place without enforcement.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

YELLOW_TT said:


> ZephyR2 said:
> 
> 
> > YELLOW_TT said:
> ...


BTW - that should be "too".


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

I disagree, it's correct as "to". Awkward. :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> You're demonstrating exactly how percentages work, which is why the idiot is the person who uses a percentage as a headline statement. Piping up about how you'd notice a 17% increase at some speeds but then backtracking on others makes it a meaningless measurement.


Eh? As you *just *said, all I said was that I would notice a 17% increase at 30mph. I didn't say a 17% increase would be noticeable at all speeds, so what the hell do you think I'm backtracking on??? FFS Dash, give it a rest. People say I'll argue about anything, but you're taking the piss even by my standards...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ZephyR2 said:


> An interesting case. I don't have the time to read through it all but it sounds like its the police's estimate of speed vs the defendants estimate of speed. With the absence of any hard evidence on either side the CPS capitulated following the Newton hearing. In fact it sounds like that case had a number of details that could be challenged by both sides. And this is the weakness of relying only upon an officers personal estimation of speed.
> Different matter though if the prosecution's evidence had been based upon a speed camera etc. as most such prosecutions are, and hence my generalisation.
> Thinking about your dash-cam evidence I suspect that it would be quite easy to take a video recording without any speed and to superimpose any speed of your liking upon it. I'm surprised that someone hasn't come up with a dash-cam that burns the actual speed limit into the video rather than your actual speed. So would it be right for the court simply accept a defendant's dash-cam footage, as supplied without testing the evidence, as should be done?
> 
> ...


Well, I gave that case as an example because, despite the fact there was no evidence other than witness statements, the case was still heard (CPS must have felt the evidence was sufficient for prosecution) and the judge was persuaded that the speed was lower than the police estimate. It demonstrates that the bar for prosecution, and for arguing your speed in a newton hearing, is set much lower than you thought it was.

A newton hearing is conducted whenever the defence requests one, because they admit the offence but disagree with the facts of the case. It has nothing to do with how much of an effect it will have on sentencing. As I said at the end of my example, the speeds I've used probably wouldn't result in a different sentence, but I was demonstrating the principles, rather than trying to invent an ultra-realistic scenario. That being said if you asked for a newton hearing for the difference between 55 and 60mph, you'd get one. It just wouldn't help you.

As I mentioned before, the guidelines are discretionary so enforcement can happen (by a police officer) at any speed above the limit. And, even if a police officer is using his discretion and applying the guidelines, he may not be estimating your speed accurately, so just because you're going below the guideline speed doesn't mean you're safe.

When passing a camera, you can treat the guidelines as fixed and drive at whatever speed you think is within the recommendations, taking into account the accuracy of your speedo. When passing a police car you'd be mad to drive up to the guideline speed in the belief that you can't be stopped. The guidelines won't save you at the side of the road and they won't save you in court. Which is why it's important to differentiate between enforcement and prosecution (and between cameras and police cars).


----------

