Level crossing stupidity...

[Dunsignalling]

Many who lose their licence for what ever reason, just continue to drive anyway, so how do you deal with that?

Part of the problem is a fixed price penalty, is no deterrent for some people. Spending 100 pound a day, would be of zero consequence to them, if no other penalty possible as per your example, others it would send to bankruptcy, in a short time.

For the first time they are caught, six months in the slammer - automatic, no exceptions. Double up for each subsequent one.

 

Sooner or later, you'll find what the individual's deterrence threshold really is.

 

John

[Budgie]

For the first time they are caught, six months in the slammer - automatic, no exceptions. Double up for each subsequent one.

 

Sooner or later, you'll find what the individual's deterrence threshold really is.

 

John

How are you going to pay for all the "slammers" that will have to be built as a result?

[Dunsignalling]

I am going to go against the flow here. I do not think that the punishment is the issue. You could have a sentence of immediate execution of you, your family and all known friends and relatives and it won't make the slightest bit of difference if the perpetrator thinks there is no chance of getting caught. Getting caught should be the deterrent. A very minimal punishment would suffice if they got caught every time. Just think how obediently everyone would obey the speed limit if every single time on a journey you went more than 5mph over the limit you were fined just £10 and had no points on your license - Bet there are some that would add about £100 to the cost of the school run every day if they did not change their habits PDQ.

The problem is those who are repeatedly caught but who suffer no significant punishment for their offending. Getting caught therefore doesn't matter to them. 

 

I'm a good boy now but, in my younger days, I was a habitual speed merchant.

 

However, I always kept my eyes open and my wits about me so only ever got one ticket, my own fault for being slow to notice a cleverly placed camera van. 

 

Anybody who gets caught just isn't concentrating on the task in hand, and that's more dangerous than the speeding. It's called driving without due care and attention.

 

John

How are you going to pay for all the "slammers" that will have to be built as a result?

Confiscate offenders cars and sell them, then make them pay rent. Seriously, though, compared to the USA, where they seem to manage OK, the UK has a tiny prison population and the number of people who habitually drive when banned (and are therefore most likely to be caught) isn't that huge.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

A customer told me about a friend of hers, who apparently come home one day & found 5 speeding fines in the post, all for the same day at the same location. The friend told her that she was just going on the school run & a couple of trips to the local shops etc. Couldn't see the wood for the trees, or the camera car apparently.

I'm surprised she didn't hit it............

[Mark Saunders]

I am going to go against the flow here. I do not think that the punishment is the issue. You could have a sentence of immediate execution of you, your family and all known friends and relatives and it won't make the slightest bit of difference if the perpetrator thinks there is no chance of getting caught. Getting caught should be the deterrent. A very minimal punishment would suffice if they got caught every time. Just think how obediently everyone would obey the speed limit if every single time on a journey you went more than 5mph over the limit you were fined just £10 and had no points on your license - Bet there are some that would add about £100 to the cost of the school run every day if they did not change their habits PDQ.

 

If speeding over 5mph it would help if cars had properly calibrated Speedometers rather than the approximation currently available!

[Titan]

Many who lose their licence for what ever reason, just continue to drive anyway, so how do you deal with that?

Part of the problem is a fixed price penalty, is no deterrent for some people. Spending 100 pound a day, would be of zero consequence to them, if no other penalty possible as per your example, others it would send to bankruptcy, in a short time.

 

 

The problem is those who are repeatedly caught but who suffer no significant punishment for their offending. Getting caught therefore doesn't matter to them. 

 

 

 

I was thinking of that, make the fine say 10% of the book value of the car they are driving. Then it will hurt rich and poor alike.

[Dunsignalling]

If speeding over 5mph it would help if cars had properly calibrated Speedometers rather than the approximation currently available!

Speedos almost always read fast, so there's no excuse there. They are supposed to be accurate +/- 5% (total leeway 10%) when new and they are much better than they used to be. EDIT: I think this was under the old Construction & Use Regulations, Titan's post below is the up to date position.

 

The technology is available for all new cars to have 100% accurate GPS speedos. Link them all to the DVLA computer and BMW/Audi drivers could be billed monthly. You'd probably raise enough to abolish Income Tax.

 

John

Edited August 8, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Titan]

If speeding over 5mph it would help if cars had properly calibrated Speedometers rather than the approximation currently available!

Speedos almost always read fast, so there's no excuse there. They are supposed to be accurate +/- 5% (total leeway 10%) when new and they are much better than they used to be.

 

The technology is available for all new cars to have 100% accurate GPS speedos. Link them all to the DVLA computer and BMW/Audi drivers could be billed monthly. You'd probably raise enough to abolish Income Tax. 

 

John

 

Not quite, it is +10% -0% i.e. they are all calibrated specifically by law when they leave the factory to over estimate by up to 10%. Thus if you are doing 35mph your speedo will show anything from 35mph to 38.5mph, and never less than 35mph. Most cars I have driven are bang on 5% over estimation, so it seems that the calibration is very precise between makes. It also means no excuse -  'my speedo said I was doing 30' excuse does not wash when caught speeding.

 

There once was a case - some guy trying to avoid losing his licence when caught doing 110mph - He was trying to use as mitigation that his speedo was only showing 99mph (yes silly and desperate I know) So sure was he that he paid a garage to independently certify that his speedo was reading under 100mph, only for said garage to prove that his speedo was showing over 120mph...

Edited August 8, 2016 by Titan

[PhilJ W]

I was thinking of that, make the fine say 10% of the book value of the car they are driving. Then it will hurt rich and poor alike.

Drivers of certain cars would get paid out instead.

[Dunsignalling]

Drivers of certain cars would get paid out instead.

Yeah, but there aren't many CityRovers left and few of them are likely to be able to top 30 any more............

 

EDIT: I've just had a look on www.howmanyleft.co.uk and was amazed to discover that about a third of those sold in the UK are still on the road. Presumably they don't get out much because I haven't clapped eyes on one in ages.

 

John

Edited August 8, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[phil-b259]

If speeding over 5mph it would help if cars had properly calibrated Speedometers rather than the approximation currently available!

 

It is in fact ILLEGAL to have an overeading Speedometer  EVEN BY 0.00000.......000001MPH.

 

Given motor manufacturers cannot give an absolute guarantee that they can make a spedo accurate enough, they have to deliberately make it under read. If a spedo has a 5% tollerance then the spedo be calibrated such that it must read 70MPH by the time the actual speed has got to 66.5MPH. Otherwise that 5% tollerance could have you doing 73.5MPH when the spedo says 70MPH

 

What has made this more noticeable is GPS based speed monitoring devices / apps which (as long as they are not built into the car) don't have to obey the same rules as motor manufacturers.

[peanuts]

It is in fact ILLEGAL to have an overeading Speedometer  EVEN BY 0.00000.......000001MPH.

 

Given motor manufacturers cannot give an absolute guarantee that they can make a spedo accurate enough, they have to deliberately make it under read. If a spedo has a 5% tollerance then the spedo be calibrated such that it must read 70MPH by the time the actual speed has got to 66.5MPH. Otherwise that 5% tollerance could have you doing 73.5MPH when the spedo says 70MPH

 

What has made this more noticeable is GPS based speed monitoring devices / apps which (as long as they are not built into the car) don't have to obey the same rules as motor manufacturers.

and this is the reason i would spend my time trundling through the M60 road works in lane two  at 45mph in my truck fitted with a calibrated speedo due to being on tachograph as cant go into lane three to pass so frustrating 

[Fat Controller]

Yeah, but there aren't many CityRovers left and few of them are likely to be able to top 30 any more............

 

EDIT: I've just had a look on www.howmanyleft.co.uk and was amazed to discover that about a third of those sold in the UK are still on the road. Presumably they don't get out much because I haven't clapped eyes on one in ages.

 

John

We've got one, which stays at Lynne's mother's place in Stoke- seems OK, and definitely better than the Metro it replaced.

[Dunsignalling]

It is in fact ILLEGAL to have an overeading Speedometer  EVEN BY 0.00000.......000001MPH.

 

 

Don't you mean under-reading? That would be an indication of [e.g.] 48mph when you were actually doing 50. 

 

Over-reading (on any meter, speedo or otherwise) is when the reading is higher than accurate. Using the same figures, an indicated 50 when you are doing 48.  

 

John

Edited August 8, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Fat Controller]

I was thinking of that, make the fine say 10% of the book value of the car they are driving. Then it will hurt rich and poor alike.

Rather than going for the value of the car, how about following the idea of the fine being proportional to the offender's salary/ wealth? It might recycle some the money that currently goes into the bank accounts of Premier League footballer.

[Welly]

Rather than going for the value of the car, how about following the idea of the fine being proportional to the offender's salary/ wealth? It might recycle some the money that currently goes into the bank accounts of Premier League footballer.

I think that was tried during the 1990s but then abandoned probably due to "close connections" to the then government being stung!

[RJS1977]

I was thinking of that, make the fine say 10% of the book value of the car they are driving. Then it will hurt rich and poor alike.

 

Personally, I've always thought Raf Valone had the right idea:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hcmGG6VUsU

[phil-b259]

Don't you mean under-reading? That would be an indication of [e.g.] 48mph when you were actually doing 50. 

 

Over-reading (on any meter, speedo or otherwise) is when the reading is higher than accurate. Using the same figures, an indicated 50 when you are doing 48.  

 

John

 

Nope - its all due to the law regarding speed limits.

 

As far as the law is concerned you are committing an offence by travelling 0.0000......001MPH over the posted limit. While the Police may apply the 10%+2MPH when it comes to enforcement action, in legal terms there is no actual requirement to do so - speed limits are absolute with no tolerances in legislation.

 

As such motor manufacturers have a legal liability not to sell you something that can result in your prosecution which is why it is written into the relevant motor vehicle design regs.

 

Hence the requirement that a speedo on a UK registered motor vehicle must never over read - you cannot be prosecuted for doing 66.5 in a 70MPH limit, but you can be prosecuted for doing 73.5MPH

Edited August 8, 2016 by phil-b259

[RJS1977]

I think that's what's John's saying - speedometers err on the side of giving to high a reading (over -reading) rather than too low (under reading), which is illegal.

[Titan]

Rather than going for the value of the car, how about following the idea of the fine being proportional to the offender's salary/ wealth? It might recycle some the money that currently goes into the bank accounts of Premier League footballer.

 

Far too complicated -  trying to establish the offenders salary/wealth can be particularly tricky, the tax man has a hard enough time of it already. You have the reg number so you know the age and make/model of the car.  The fine can then be done instantly and easily, without having to try and prove the offenders income etc, which would otherwise no doubt cost loads of court time as many offenders would try and dispute it. Seeing as most people drive a car commensurate with what they can afford - even Premier League footballers - it might actually be a more accurate method of establishing wealth than trying to go for the salary anyway!

[Guest]

Seeing as most people drive a car commensurate with what they can afford - even Premier League footballers - it might actually be a more accurate method of establishing wealth than trying to go for the salary anyway!

 

Hmm. I drive a 10 yr-old Transit van with moderately rusty wheel arches, yet I'm a close relation to the recently deceased King of Nigeria and am soon to be unbelievably wealthy. Well, according to an email I received this morning...

I should really place an order for the latest Ferrari or Lambo, but I may just stick with the Transit. That way, no-one will guess how wealthy I am I soon will be. Cunning, eh?

[peanuts]

Far too complicated -  trying to establish the offenders salary/wealth can be particularly tricky, the tax man has a hard enough time of it already. You have the reg number so you know the age and make/model of the car.  The fine can then be done instantly and easily, without having to try and prove the offenders income etc, which would otherwise no doubt cost loads of court time as many offenders would try and dispute it. Seeing as most people drive a car commensurate with what they can afford - even Premier League footballers - it might actually be a more accurate method of establishing wealth than trying to go for the salary anyway!

and if its a company/hire  car  how does that fit had  a no fault accident two years ago in my 15yearold 2.0 diesel rover 300 miles from home so provided with curtecy car brand new delivey miles bmw 120d sport now if i had committed an offence on the way back which vehicle would i have paid your fine on the swanky £20k+ beemer or the knackered £300 rover ? 

[Dunsignalling]

and if its a company/hire  car  how does that fit had  a no fault accident two years ago in my 15yearold 2.0 diesel rover 300 miles from home so provided with curtecy car brand new delivey miles bmw 120d sport now if i had committed an offence on the way back which vehicle would i have paid your fine on the swanky £20k+ beemer or the knackered £300 rover ? 

Company car values are usually in proportion to the salary of the driver so that doesn't constitute an anomaly. 

 

As for your own example, tricky - depends on how much self-discipline one can muster when presented with something rather more sporty than ones own car to play with. We all have a free choice as to how deep we plant the right foot.

 

So long as the rules/process is well publicised, everybody knows where they stand before any offence is committed then I don't really see any difficulty.

 

John

Edited August 9, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[jcm@gwr]

The other point that no-one else has thought of

is that your speedo cannot be 100% accurate

while it relies on mechanically measuring the

rotational speed of the gearbox/driveshaft.

The tyre wear and pressure differences can

make a difference. 

Even if you are checking the pressures daily,

the wear on the tyres will slowly put the speedo

accuracy out, that is something else they have

to allow for.

An extreme example was my sisters car, 1960

Triumph Herald, as standard it was fitted with

5:20 x 13 crossplies, we picked up a couple of

6:00 x 13 tyres for the rear just before we went

to Scotland. I worked out that if we got the car

up to an indicated 85 mph, we were doing a ton!

[Dunsignalling]

The other point that no-one else has thought of

is that your speedo cannot be 100% accurate

while it relies on mechanically measuring the

rotational speed of the gearbox/driveshaft.

The tyre wear and pressure differences can

make a difference. 

Even if you are checking the pressures daily,

the wear on the tyres will slowly put the speedo

accuracy out, that is something else they have

to allow for.

An extreme example was my sisters car, 1960

Triumph Herald, as standard it was fitted with

5:20 x 13 crossplies, we picked up a couple of

6:00 x 13 tyres for the rear just before we went

to Scotland. I worked out that if we got the car

up to an indicated 85 mph, we were doing a ton!

Worn tyres cover less distance for each revolution of the wheel so you will be travelling slower at any speedo reading than you would on new ones. The same applies if they are under-inflated so, in neither case will you travel as fast as you would on a set with the full rolling circumference at any indicated speed.

 

I also swapped wheels on one of my cars, a Peugeot 205XS which had 165-70 x 13 tyres as standard. I fitted a set of alloys with 185-60 x 14 tyres which raised the gearing significantly. I didn't go to the trouble of getting the speedo recalibrated so had to remember that 60 on the clock was nearer 70 on the road.  

 

I drove a few old Heralds back when they were fairly new and I don't remember any of them being capable of 85mph other than when travelling down a fairly steep hill (the much later 13/60 model certainly would do so, though); On cars of that age and engine size (1200cc), raising the gearing by fitting big tyres would usually prevent the motor hitting maximum power in top gear and actually reduce the top speed on a level road.

 

John

Edited August 9, 2016 by Dunsignalling