Speeding ticket heads up

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

 

I understand the legal issues around enforcement actions against violations of simple limit values. The law specifies a simple limit, not a margin, band of tolerance, measurement uncertainty and repeatability etc etc. Hence the limit is what it is, in this case 70mph. Given the obvious fact (or maybe not obvious to all) that no measurement is 100% accurate even authorities recognise there is a need to apply some flexibility in order to avoid wrongful prosecutions where it may be measurement error/margin and not a substantive exceedance which indicates a violation (whether it is an actual violation or not is guesswork if it is within the margin of tolerance for the measurement/test method). However, legally you can be prosecuted if a witness can show you have exceeded the applicable limit regardless of measurement issues.

If the margin of error for an instrument which has indicated a speed of 73mph was 71mph - 75mph then that is not the same as agreeing the car was recorded at 71mph and to claim as such in court would essentially be submitting a falsehood. It could be asserted the car was doing a minimum of 71mph or that it was doing 73mph, or that it had been recorded at 73mph which means that (assuming the measurement was done in accordance with standards) that the speed was between 71 and 75mph. These options are not the same as claiming the car was at 71mph, if there is a margin or error for the measurement then it is not possible to make an absolute statement as to what speed the car was at and if it was claimed to be 71mph then the question would be on what basis? The car may have been doing a true 73mph, it may have been doing 75mph, just using the lower limit of tolerance and saying that'll do just opens up more questions. This is not pedantry, it is just basic metrology, in some cases ISO or equivalent measurement processes may be written into a regulation but in most cases they aren't. It would actually help things a lot if law makers did write in measurement protocols to be used when prosecuting into laws themselves rather than opaque guidance or subsidiary regulations.

 

Hence why some are asking what communication Paul80 received fro Northamptonshire Police!

 

On the wider point of what is claimed / what is actually measured - you would need to have the matter tested in a court of law. The judges may decide that the absence of the wording 'at least' in the NIP means the thing is void - or they could conclude that-the wording used (71 in a 70) was perfectly adequate for the prosecution to proceed.

 

All I know is I'm not going to be the one to mount a test case to see which it is. Over to you...

Edited November 18, 2019 by phil-b259

[Claude_Dreyfus]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

If you actually read the response you will find virtually none of them are hostile to Paul80 who was the unfortunate recipient of a speeding ticket following somewhat zealous Police enforcement on the M1! Many RM-web members are gratefull of Paul80 alerting us to the situation and preventing us ending up in his situation.

 

Most of the posts are actually debating the the often quoted - but completely unofficial tolerances (which have no standing in a court of law) that SOME Police forces now use when deciding whether to prosecute. While there have been threats in the past from various Police Forces about a 'zero tolerance approach', like many, I am somewhat surprised that several forces seem to have implemented exactly that and believed the 'zero tolerance' articles were merely trying to 'scare' drivers into being a bit more careful than an indication of actual Police force policy.

 

Hence there is an understandable curiosity as to what the communication from Northamptonshire Police said in their letter to Paul80.

 

 

 

At the risk of biting, I commented on some of the replies, which by saying 'virtually none of them are hostile...' suggests you agree there have been at least some which are. Not worth getting into semantics here, but I felt some of the responses were uncalled for given what the OP was trying to achieve.

 

Not sure why you feel the need to highlight a point which I subscribe to (and my post makes reference to). More than one on here, including the OP, have commented that any 'leeway' in speed prosecution is at best discretionary, and most probably not followed by the police. I certainly wouldn't risk it, and I have certainly not argued against it.

 

I'd wager the communication from Northamptonshire police will be much the same as any other Notice of Prosecution a fair percentage of us have no doubt received at one point or another. I cannot see what it will achieve in seeing it other than to doubt the OPs word on the matter. The OP has warned us in good faith, and I am sure a most are grateful and will take heed. Those that don't will no doubt find out the hard way.

 

As an edit, I should also add that the OP has already accepted it and taken the course. Not point challenging things now...however if someone on here wishes to test the various tolerances feel free.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Claude_Dreyfus
Extra point

[TheQ]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

I meant four lane, single carriageway roads (or maybe I meant to say single carriageway, two lanes in each direction). A two lane, one carriageway road would be your bog-standard ordinary road, and like every single carriageway road with a national speed limit would be 60 mph for cars. The only higher exception I know of is a short bit of A601(M), which is single carriageway but under motorway restrictions and has no signs to the contrary, so has a 70 mph speed limit. But it's also too short to sensibly even try (there used to be the rather longer A6144(M), which certainly was long enough to get up to 70 and stay there for a bit, but that's now an A road with a 50 mph limit).

That piece of dual carriageway is single carriageway in each direction and the NSL applying is 70mph. though you'd be a lunatic to try it.. If could get past the tractor... 

[ejstubbs]

On 17/11/2019 at 11:03, jjb1970 said:

People buying VW cars assumed their engines met emissions standards. That ended well. 

 

It didn't end well for VAG, but It didn't affect the owners of the vehicles*, they were still legal to use on the public road (in the EU at any rate, I'm not sure about the US).

 

I believe (though I'm very willing to be proven wrong) that it was actually only in California that they didn't meet the emissions standards, and they didn't actually need the cheat code in the ECU to pass the EU emissions standards.  But someone decided to leave it in there anyway, and that was what was illegal - not that the cars didn't meet the standards, but that VAG had provided itself with a means to cheat the tests (even though they quite likely didn't need to).

 

Worth bearing in mind as well that real-world testing, as opposed to lab tests which the cheat code was designed to beat, has shown that vehicles from many other manufacturers fail to meet the emissions standards in normal use (in fact I believe that VAG are far from the worst in this respect).  My understanding is that the testing regime is being amended to try to deal with this.

 

* Apart from those who allowed their dealer to apply the "fix", and then found their engines not working very well.  Problems have been fairly widely reported but it's not actually clear what proportion of owners who had the fix subsequently had problems.  One indication would be if VAG would reveal how many post-fix warranty claims they've had to deal with, but AFAIK they haven't felt the need to do that.

[jjb1970]

21 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Hence why some are asking what communication Paul8 received fro Northampton Police!

 

On the wider point of what is claimed / what is actually measured - you would need to have the matter tested in a court of law. The judges may decide that the absence of the wording 'at least' in the NIP means the thing is void - or hey could conclude that-the wording used (71 in a 7) was perfectly adequate for the prosecution to proceed.

 

All I know is I'm not going to be the one to mount a test case to see which it is. Over to you...

 

Usually the standard answer from the authorities when asked to clarify these issues is precisely that - it has to be tested in court. Which is true but not especially helpful. 

 

To be clear, I am not disputing the fact that in law as soon as a limit is exceeded then an offence has been committed and enforcement action can be taken. I avoid this when driving by not exceeding the speed limit as indicated by my cars instruments which when checked against other sources read very slightly low. However it is also true that if authorities apply a zero tolerance policy then innocent people will be criminalised as a result of measurement error. Which is wrong. 

 

This is not just an abstract argument. I have spent quite a lot of hours working on such cases in respect to engine emissions, power plant emissions and fuel sulphur content and still find sloppy and imprecise arguments in enforcement documents to be a sad reflection. 

[melmerby]

3 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 However it is also true that if authorities apply a zero tolerance policy then innocent people will be criminalised as a result of measurement error. Which is wrong. 

 

This is not just an abstract argument. I have spent quite a lot of hours working on such cases in respect to engine emissions, power plant emissions and fuel sulphur content and still find sloppy and imprecise arguments in enforcement documents to be a sad reflection. 

Normally because they are written by pen pushers and not engineers who know the tolerances and probabilities involved with measurements.

[tigerburnie]

There is a bullet proof way of avoiding being caught by a gatso camera...…………………………………...according to Top Gear you drive at over 170mph and the cameras don't see you...……………………………..

[ejstubbs]

On 17/11/2019 at 17:07, melmerby said:

GPS accuracy varies from very good to poor depending where it is in use.

e.g. if the road is open and no tall buildings/trees/mountains in the way the GPS will use multiple satellites to give a very accurate reading.

However in between tall buildings, in mountainous country etc. the receiver might only get one good signal and that can degrade it's accuracy somewhat.

 

Indeed.  I should have written: "Choose a straight, level, quiet stretch of road with a clear view of the sky".  In fact, I realised that an hour or so after I posted, and I just knew that someone would pop up to point out the omission...

 

Given an adequate view of the sky even a smartphone's GPS can be perfectly accurate enough to gauge the error in a car's speedometer to a sufficient precision for normal use.  (The small fluctuations that can often be observed in GPS location and indicated speed while stationary average out very quickly at anything much above walking speed.)

 

9 hours ago, Nick C said:

Bear in mind that the accuracy of your speedometer will change as your tyres wear - a new tyre has about 8-9mm of tread, a fully worn one 1.3mm, so that's a potential 15mm difference in diameter, which works out about 50mm difference in circumference.

 

Indeed again.  Which is why it's theoretically preferable to calibrate your speedometer on new tyres.  As the tread wears down, the rolling radius decreases and the wheels rotate faster for the same road speed, making the speedometer over-read progressively more.  So if you note that your speedometer reads 79mph at a GPS-confirmed constant 70mph on new tyres, then as the tyres wear you'll be going progressively slower than a real 70mph at that indicated 79mph.  (My car has 205/55R16 tyres, so the theoretical speedometer error due to tyre wear when they're on the limit vs brand new is about 2%.)

[duncan]

The old A77 (before the M77 motorway was built) was a notorious 4 lane single carriageway, with bends, hills and dips.  Thank goodness for the motorway.  The old road was narrowed to single carriageway, nice wide lanes and generally a slower road, even though still a 60 limit.

[Anglian]

1 hour ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Indeed.  I should have written: "Choose a straight, level, quiet stretch of road with a clear view of the sky".  In fact, I realised that an hour or so after I posted, and I just knew that someone would pop up to point out the omission...

 

Given an adequate view of the sky even a smartphone's GPS can be perfectly accurate enough to gauge the error in a car's speedometer to a sufficient precision for normal use.  (The small fluctuations that can often be observed in GPS location and indicated speed while stationary average out very quickly at anything much above walking speed.)

 

 

Indeed again.  Which is why it's theoretically preferable to calibrate your speedometer on new tyres.  As the tread wears down, the rolling radius decreases and the wheels rotate faster for the same road speed, making the speedometer over-read progressively more.  So if you note that your speedometer reads 79mph at a GPS-confirmed constant 70mph on new tyres, then as the tyres wear you'll be going progressively slower than a real 70mph at that indicated 79mph.  (My car has 205/55R16 tyres, so the theoretical speedometer error due to tyre wear when they're on the limit vs brand new is about 2%.)

 

How does tyre temperature effect the reading of the speedometer or is there no change in the rolling radius as the tyre pressure increases as they warm up? 

[melmerby]

18 minutes ago, Anglian said:

 

How does tyre temperature effect the reading of the speedometer or is there no change in the rolling radius as the tyre pressure increases as they warm up? 

If the pressure goes up, with the same load the effective diameter will increase, so faster speed for the same speedo reading.

[Zero Gravitas]

Bit disappointing to see that the OP has not come back to this thread.

 

The reason I asked for sight of the documentation the OP received is that I’m also involved in a couple of motoring forums, where periodically someone will claim that they were prosecuted for 71 in a 70, or 31 in a 30, or another speed not conforming the current ACPO guidance about at what point prosecution should commence. However, nobody has ever provided any evidence to support their claim.

 

I have no reason to disbelieve the OP; but if the OP were to share the (redacted) documentation, this would be the first definitive proof that this is actually happening, and which would be useful information to share in other forums.

[gordon s]

I agree with your sentiments ZG as if this is the case, it would be in contradiction from this view last year...

 

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-industry-news/2018/09/10/police-chief-call-for-zero-tolerance-on-speeding-not-achievable

[57xx]

On 18/11/2019 at 14:39, Reorte said:

I know someone who had just been on a speed awareness course and was insisting that the speed limit on a dual carriageway for cars was 60 mph, not 70, because that's what they'd just told him. Seems like the people giving them don't always know what they're talking about.

 

It's possible he misheard a conversation about van speed limits and assumed it was cars? 60mph for dual carriageways and 50mph for single carriageways.

[Reorte]

4 hours ago, 57xx said:

 

It's possible he misheard a conversation about van speed limits and assumed it was cars? 60mph for dual carriageways and 50mph for single carriageways.

 

Said it was what they were told on the course, rather than a conversation, but could've not been listening very attentively I suppose. He seemed pretty insistent mind, enough to bet a couple of drinks on it (this was in the pub, weren't mixing drinking and driving!)

[45156]

I had to attend a speed awaremess course a few years ago, organised by Lancashire County Council, who soon afterwards stopped running them and they were taken over by Lancashire Constabulary,  On the day that I attended there were over 60 of us split into two groups of 30, each conducted by two ADIs who were also IAM instructors. 

 

They started by asking us all to explain why we were here, and at least five in our group pleaded that they should not be as they were "still" within the spped limit plus 10%.  A few had totally ridiculous reasons like "my car has predicitive braking so the speed limit shouldn't apply", and "I though the speed cameras only worked in the daytime", and "The SatNav said that the speed limit was 40, but it wasn't" - the last of these was quickly destroyed as the instructor's question of "when did you last update it" was replied to with "What - I didn't know I had to".

 

The very first slides they showed is were a speed limit sign of 30, and then 30 + 10% with a cross through it.  "If it says 30, it's 30"  Says it all really.

 

As an aside, the village that I live in has a 20 limit throughout, which is much observed in its breach.  One morning recently, I was coming through at 20, when I saw a poice car parked on a side road, and and two PCs with a hand held speed camera.  I have since learned from anecdotal comments, including the lady at the paper shop, that they caught about a dozen in the hour that they were there, and also one who came through at over 40, and who is awaiting a court appearance for dangerous driving (he is well known locally for his speeding, so it will be a good thing if he is banned).

 

 

[Reorte]

44 minutes ago, 45156 said:

As an aside, the village that I live in has a 20 limit throughout, which is much observed in its breach.  One morning recently, I was coming through at 20, when I saw a poice car parked on a side road, and and two PCs with a hand held speed camera.  I have since learned from anecdotal comments, including the lady at the paper shop, that they caught about a dozen in the hour that they were there, and also one who came through at over 40, and who is awaiting a court appearance for dangerous driving (he is well known locally for his speeding, so it will be a good thing if he is banned).

 

A dozen out of how many though?

 

As I've mentioned before a more zealous approach to enforcing ever-increasing numbers of lower limits starts to become counterproductive. A high level of non-compliance is usually a sign of an inappropriate limit. Sometimes the hazards aren't obvious and a lower limit than expected is appropriate, but that only works if a sufficiently high proportion of drivers respect them in the first place. People who get stuck at "that's the law, it should be obeyed" and no further need to realise this. We live in a country where the law has to broadly have support from the public (that's ultimately the point of a democracy after all), and it's a lot easier to enforce it if it's earned rather than demanded respect.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Reorte

[alastairq]

The banning of drivers [for whatever reason] needs now to be re-considered, IMHO [ jaundiced, and, being retired now from the fray, of an uncaring attitude!!!].....

 

A 'ban, in itself, is difficult to enforce.....and no doubt, frequently ignored.  [If my Local Traffic Police twitter feed is anything to go by....most frequent reports concern seizing of motors through no insurance, subsequently finding driver was banned anyway.]

 

 

 

 

[alastairq]

6 minutes ago, Reorte said:

and it's a lot easier to enforce it if it's earned rather than demanded respect.

 

''Respect'' is gained [again, IMHO, jaundiced though it is]....solely amongst a minority of road users.

The vast majority will always think 'they' know better.  Regardless of background, education, and often, skills levels.

 

For 20 mph limits, my view is, they should always be accompanied by sufficiently gross inconvenience to 'free passage'.

 

Edited November 25, 2019 by alastairq

[melmerby]

9 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

 

 

As I've mentioned before a more zealous approach to enforcing ever-increasing numbers of lower limits starts to become counterproductive. A high level of non-compliance is usually a sign of an inappropriate limit. Sometimes the hazards aren't obvious and a lower limit than expected is appropriate, but that only works if a sufficiently high proportion of drivers respect them in the first place. People who get stuck at "that's the law, it should be obeyed" and no further need to realise this. We live in a country where the law has to broadly have support from the public (that's ultimately the point of a democracy after all), and it's a lot easier to enforce it if it's earned rather than demanded respect.

Any respect earned of speed limits and what they are for gets lost when you travel down the M6 from the M54 to the M5 junction.

It has been converted to "Dumb  sorry Smart Motorway" and I have been down it many times since it was complete.

I've been down in atrocious weather, perfect weather, heavy traffic and almost deserted.

In every case the speed limit signs have been set to 60.

You get the feeling that some numpty has switched the limit on but no-one will take responsibilty to switch it off.

[Reorte]

23 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 

''Respect'' is gained [again, IMHO, jaundiced though it is]....solely amongst a minority of road users.

The vast majority will always think 'they' know better.  Regardless of background, education, and often, skills levels.

 

For 20 mph limits, my view is, they should always be accompanied by sufficiently gross inconvenience to 'free passage'.

 

I'd argue that the majority more or less respect limits - they're close in spirit if not to the letter at any rate. The minority are the ones that'll pay them no attention whatsoever no matter what, and they're the people the majority of measures need to be directed at (people who stick to to the letter all the time are also a minority, and they some of them cause problems, albeit fewer, when they pay the limit more attention than the road conditions).

 

AIUI 20 mph zones should be self-enforcing via such measures, and don't require repeater signs. Ordinary 20 mph limits don't need to be and do require repeaters.

[Reorte]

22 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Any respect earned of speed limits and what they are for gets lost when you travel down the M6 from the M54 to the M5 junction.

It has been converted to "Dumb  sorry Smart Motorway" and I have been down it many times since it was complete.

I've been down in atrocious weather, perfect weather, heavy traffic and almost deserted.

In every case the speed limit signs have been set to 60.

You get the feeling that some numpty has switched the limit on but no-one will take responsibilty to switch it off.

 

Thought those were supposed to be automatic (albeit with the ability to be overridden), based on traffic levels.

[Pete the Elaner]

Just now, Reorte said:

 

Thought those were supposed to be automatic (albeit with the ability to be overridden), based on traffic levels.

I would be surprised because:

I remember driving to Stansted airport for work once. I remember where I was going so I know this was back in 2013.

M1, Luton, 4am. Just 1 other vehicle was visible in my carriageway & that was about 1/2 mile ahead.

The roadside signs read Congestion & a 60 mph limit was in force.

I got the impression I would have seen a double flash if I had gone too fast.

[dagrizz]

My experience of the M6 past Birmingham is that the speed limit keeps changing as you pass the gantries. So it changes from 60 to 40, up to 50, back to 40, then back up to 50, then 60 etc, all within a few miles. You spend most of the time looking at the limits on the gantries, checking your speedo, adjusting your speed to suit and not enough time concentrating on your driving, and the driving of others!

 

Graham

 

   

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

 

''Respect'' is gained [again, IMHO, jaundiced though it is]....solely amongst a minority of road users.

The vast majority will always think 'they' know better.  Regardless of background, education, and often, skills levels.

 

For 20 mph limits, my view is, they should always be accompanied by sufficiently gross inconvenience to 'free passage'.

 

My wife used to be a cop in Australia. 

One day she was assigned to a local road, which IIRC had a sign on it which said something like 'No Entry - local traffic only'. So it was an enforceable sign, because it included 'No Entry'.

She said they stopped about 30 people, all of whom were using it as a short cut.

Not one of them, claimed the obvious and incapable of being proven a lie excuse, that they were visiting 'the Smith's at no. 27'.

 

Edit to add.

 

I'm not sure of the exact wording/design of the sign, which I realise is critical, but I remember her saying it was 100% legal at the time.

I've never seen a sign like that, before or since.

Edited November 25, 2019 by kevinlms