The Police

[keith1879]

This new proposal may even cause accidents as drivers will be acrefully looking at their speed and paying less attention to te road. In fact its doubtful that speedometers ane even police police speed measuring equipment is accurate to 1 mph.

It doesn't matter what the limit is or what the (so-called) technical allowance is it is quite clear that at any time on any road there is a speed above which a driver will expect to be fined if he is caught. 30, 33, 37 it makes no difference ....there will be a limit. Now two points strike me.

First - things will be safer if all drivers perceive the same limit (and as the signs say thirty then thirty seems like a good shout).
Second (and to be fair you haven't proposed that limits should be much higher) it is a widely acknowledged fact that if a car hits a pedestrian at 30 the pedestrian usually lives - at 40 he/she usually dies. So thirty seems like a good shout.

You say that doing 1mph above the limit surely can't matter ....well in most cases I'm inclined to agree. And presumably 32 doesn't mean much compared to 31 ....and so 33 isn't much worse than 32 ....and so on until you get to 40. And yet somewhere along the line is the difference between life and death for that pedestrian who has been hit.

[Herts Clarets]

I’ve done two speed awareness courses, just over three years apart. One of the first things you are told is that there is no 10%, or indeed any other type of allowance. The speed limit is exactly that, a limit.

One of the first things I was told on a speed awareness course was that it was nothing to do with the money. This was the second session of the day, c.50 per session at 95 quid a go to listen to 2 AA driving instructors. I make that nearly 10 grand per day.....

[dsr]

It doesn't matter what the limit is or what the (so-called) technical allowance is it is quite clear that at any time on any road there is a speed above which a driver will expect to be fined if he is caught. 30, 33, 37 it makes no difference ....there will be a limit. Now two points strike me.

First - things will be safer if all drivers perceive the same limit (and as the signs say thirty then thirty seems like a good shout).
Second (and to be fair you haven't proposed that limits should be much higher) it is a widely acknowledged fact that if a car hits a pedestrian at 30 the pedestrian usually lives - at 40 he/she usually dies. So thirty seems like a good shout.

You say that doing 1mph above the limit surely can't matter ....well in most cases I'm inclined to agree. And presumably 32 doesn't mean much compared to 31 ....and so 33 isn't much worse than 32 ....and so on until you get to 40. And yet somewhere along the line is the difference between life and death for that pedestrian who has been hit.

If you're trying to argue that there should be the same penalty for driving at 31 mph on an empty dual carriageway as there is for driving at 40 mph past a busy school on a dark, wet day, then I'm not convinced.

[bf2k]

There's no doubt that driving at 31 mph in a 30 zone is a criminal offence. The only question is, is it a fair and reasonable penalty to get 3 points on your licence - the same penalty as for driving at 50 past a school on a wet winter morning? I suppose it depends whether speeding is to be taken as an absolute offence with no shades of grey, or whether you consider road conditions make a difference to the seriousness of the crime.

A speeding fine is not a criminal offence but a motoring offence. Plus I believe up to 35mph in a 30mph zone you do not receive penalty points if you take the speed awareness course. However, if you are caught speeding in any other zone it is penalised with points.

I'm sure, if the police agree that even 1 mph over the limit is dangerous in all circumstances, that they will agree to have tachographs fitted to all police cars. Then any police driver who goes over the limit by 1 mph at any time (when not on a blue light call) can collect 3 points, and if he gets 12 he will be taken off the road. I wonder how keen they would be on zero tolerance then?

If the police were to adopt this with the IPCC regulating it I think any questions about fairness would be quashed in an instance. Our company have trackers which can tell what speed you've been doing for a 3 month period. I'm surprised the police don't have these.

[Stayingup]

Can someone find a link that says that the OP's 2nd sentence is correct?
I can't find one. (Fair enough if there is one).
[He actually contradicts it later in the post.]

Oh please explain the contradiction.

[Sausage]

I’ve done two speed awareness courses, just over three years apart. One of the first things you are told is that there is no 10%, or indeed any other type of allowance. The speed limit is exactly that, a limit.

Where did you do your speed awareness course? I attended a course run by Kent County Council about 18 months ago after being caught on the M25 doing 50mph when the limit was 40mph. One of the first things we got told was that we couldn't count ourselves 'unlucky' to have been caught because we were all caught doing more than 10% plus 2mph above the speed limit. We were also told explicitly that there is a pragmatic approach to enforcement because the police don't want drivers to be fixated on their speedometer.

The following guidance issued by the CPS and ACPO suggests the 10% plus 2 rule does exist.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/r ... ty-notices

[TonbridgeClaret]

Where did you do your speed awareness course? I attended a course run by Kent County Council about 18 months ago after being caught on the M25 doing 50mph when the limit was 40mph. One of the first things we got told was that we couldn't count ourselves 'unlucky' to have been caught because we were all caught doing more than 10% plus 2mph above the speed limit. We were also told explicitly that there is a pragmatic approach to enforcement because the police don't want drivers to be fixated on their speedometer.

The following guidance issued by the CPS and ACPO suggests the 10% plus 2 rule does exist.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/r ... ty-notices

I did my courses at Tunbridge Wells. They did explain about the guidances but insisted that the speed limit was exactly that, a limit. The lady sitting next to me moaned all through the course because she had been prosecuted for doing 33mph, well within the 10% plus 2 mph you were told. Sorry but I can’t explain the obvious discrepancies in our two experiences within the same county!

[deanothedino]

I'm sure, if the police agree that even 1 mph over the limit is dangerous in all circumstances, that they will agree to have tachographs fitted to all police cars. Then any police driver who goes over the limit by 1 mph at any time (when not on a blue light call) can collect 3 points, and if he gets 12 he will be taken off the road. I wonder how keen they would be on zero tolerance then?

The police don't need to be on blue lights in a car used for police purposes to exceed the speed limit.

They can use their speed limit exemption whenever it is justified, with or without blue lights.

Also important is the fact they are trained to drive at speed. On the driving course, in unmarked cars, they can do up to 150mph.

[Dark Cloud]

I always thought the tolerance was mainly allowed because car manufacturers can't guarantee the accuracy of their speedos and what looks like 30 mph on the dash may show as 32 or even 33 on another instrument (e.g police speed camera).

[deanothedino]

The following guidance issued by the CPS and ACPO suggests the 10% plus 2 rule does exist.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/r ... ty-notices

No rule exists, a guideline exists.

[Spijed]

You would have thought in this day and age that speedometers could be manufactured to very precise measurements, almost to be exact.

[BurningBeard]

De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you

[beddie]

The Government are to blame, no one else, they have made such drastic cuts whilst not reducing the amount of paperwork that each officer has to do. They (the Government) are looking for every avenue to pul more revenue in from the tax payer. I don't agree with speeding but there are occasions when some reasonable tolerance should be allowed.

[MACCA]

You’re not wrong, but that’s not the fault of the officers on duty.

Certainly in the Met, Safer Neighbourhood Teams are non-existent compared to say 5 years ago, and response teams are stretched to breaking point to deal with the rise in violent crime.

I work in a London Borough with a population of 250 thousand people. In recent months, I have been the only unit available to take a 999 call. Me. That’s it. If there’s a stabbing, which are now almost a daily occurrence, that can easily consume half the team. Crime scenes, victim to hospital, arrest of suspect, neighbour enquiries etc.

The service we now provide to victims of crime is ****, but that’s what happens when you cut resources to the extent they have been. It’s shameful, but it’s not the fault of those in uniform on the street who are trying to hold back the tide, who are generally being assaulted, spat at, abused, finishing late, and not having meal breaks.

Not having a dig, but Solve all your problems at once, and get a different job.
I wouldn't put up with those conditions, and neither should you.
There must be some rules and/or regulations in place to make sure you are entitled to the same breaks as other workers, and for you to be paid for the amount of time/over time you have worked.
If they are not meeting those regulations that are in place and you are unhappy with working conditions, either

A. Report your boss and/or employer
B. Get another job

Both options are at your disposal.

[keith1879]

If you're trying to argue that there should be the same penalty for driving at 31 mph on an empty dual carriageway as there is for driving at 40 mph past a busy school on a dark, wet day, then I'm not convinced.

Definitely not ....but I am trying to argue that we need to draw a line and stick to it. Blurring the distinction does no good. But in any case penalties for speeding are graded according to the amount of the offence ....and rightly so.

[lesxdp]

Hi Macca,
Do you get much paid overtime?

[Claret eze]

The police don't need to be on blue lights in a car used for police purposes to exceed the speed limit.

They can use their speed limit exemption whenever it is justified, with or without blue lights.

Also important is the fact they are trained to drive at speed. On the driving course, in unmarked cars, they can do up to 150mph.

150mph but Joe blogs isn't very good at 31mph lol.dont make me laugh.

[nil_desperandum]

Oh please explain the contradiction.

Certainly.
In paragraph 2 you say that it's a "fact", and in paragraph 3 you say that it's a "proposal".
That's not being pedantic. There's a huge difference.
What percentage of proposals ever become fact?

[Rick_Muller]

https://drivetribe.com/p/you-wont-get-f ... ce=network" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[fatboy47]

I'vs worked alongside the police for several years in the past, and the idea that they are somehow more skilled than the herd as drivers is just fanciful....some of the worst drivers I've eve been in with have been coppers...backed up by the notion that they have special dispensation to be gormless behind the wheel.

[bobinho]

I’ve done two speed awareness courses, just over three years apart. One of the first things you are told is that there is no 10%, or indeed any other type of allowance. The speed limit is exactly that, a limit.

They also bombard you with loads of other facts and stats, and all of them equally pointless. I've done that course. Load of complete ********. I have also completed the advanced driving test...and that would be far more advantageous than the utterly pointless speed awareness course.

Speed in itself isn't the danger...thousands of people go faster than the `limit` that was set when cars had wooden drum brakes every day without incident. Inappropriate speed kills. But people who find themselves on this course haven't had speed related serious accidents. To qualify for the course you need to have only been slightly over.

Prosecuting speeders is easy. Easily solved "crime", easy money.

[MACCA]

Hi Macca,
Do you get much paid overtime?

Hi les.
In my current line of work, if they require an extra service that means I work later, there is a charge.

My previous jobs I've always received x1.5 or x2 of my hourly rate/salary if required to work over my contracted hours.

I'm sure not all firms may do this, but I'd expect them to outline any expected overtime and the rates for doing so when i took the job. If they weren't to my satisfaction, I wouldn't take the job. Nothing worse than being unhappy in your work place, and not getting the legal breaks required.

[Roosterbooster]

Why should there be a 'technical allowance'? Makes no sense......

Laser gun speedometers aren’t perfectly accurate. If someone was caught at 31mph in a 30 zone, I would think it’d be fairly easy to show that even a well calibrated machine could not be accurate within 10% nearly all of the time. But most people won’t challenge it, hence, overall, they’ll make more money.

[deanothedino]

Laser gun speedometers aren’t perfectly accurate. If someone was caught at 31mph in a 30 zone, I would think it’d be fairly easy to show that even a well calibrated machine could not be accurate within 10% nearly all of the time. But most people won’t challenge it, hence, overall, they’ll make more money.

“They” will make no money because the police do not keep the revenue. If they did, maybe they’d be fully staffed.

[Rick_Muller]

The issue with having zero tolerance on speeding is that there are too many variables in play. As already mentioned there are cars with inaccurate speedometers, couple that with incorrectly inflated tyres or wrong tyre sizes, then accuracy of speed guns, or even the wind affecting the handling of the gun and you have enough variables to enable an argument to be made. This is the reason for the current tolerances and they will be the reason for it staying. The authorities can not afford to have a zero tolerance policy that would enable people to contend the tickets.

[dsr]

“They” will make no money because the police do not keep the revenue. If they did, maybe they’d be fully staffed.

Whether it's about money or not isn't really that important. What is certain is that they place speed cameras where they can catch the most speeders. This is why speed cameras are placed on roads such as Padiham Road, dual carriageway, no pedestrians about, where people zip past at 35-40 with very little danger to anyone; and they don't put them on the 20 mph roads mentioned above that some nutter drives on at 60 mph. Is it because a multitude of 35 mph drivers are more like to kill than a single reckless nutter? Or is it just to collect extra convictions?

[Greenmile]

...Speed in itself isn't the danger...thousands of people go faster than the `limit` that was set when cars had wooden drum brakes every day without incident. Inappropriate speed kills. But people who find themselves on this course haven't had speed related serious accidents. To qualify for the course you need to have only been slightly over.

Prosecuting speeders is easy. Easily solved "crime", easy money.

This is right of course, a good driver can easily exceed the speed limit in many instances without causing any danger to anyone.

The problem is that most terrible drivers would consider themselves to be “a good driver” (an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect) and we have to have laws that can be applied objectively which unfortunately means basing them around the least skilled drivers (who can get through their test).

I’m sure that most folk break the speed limit on occasion, and only a small percentage get caught for it, but I would think that, on the whole, speed limits and their enforcement save many lives even compared to solving or preventing other crimes which, for me, is a more important consideration than how easy it is to prosecute or much money it brings in.

[Stayingup]

If you go to the New Scotland Yard website, it's all about 'ring us up if you're black lesbian and gay or transgender if you've had any trouble. The left-wing politicians have taken over.

London. It's another place in time to the rest of the country. Really is. Thank God I live in a nice town in Lancashire.

[Pstotto]

I agree. If I have some free time at Euston I have a walk around the neighbourhood and the UCL student posters are really radical all over. It's like some sort of Islamic State Lesbian terror action for the goodwill of the people????????? They are going apeshit and with the blessing of our government and media machine. It's using them to batter everyone else.

It's not all that different than folks who buy fierce dogs that literally want to eat anyone alive, as they moralize to the creature straining on the leash, like Rod Hull's Emu attacking Michael Parkinson.

[Stayingup]

Certainly.
In paragraph 2 you say that it's a "fact", and in paragraph 3 you say that it's a "proposal".
That's not being pedantic. There's a huge difference.
What percentage of proposals ever become fact?

Damn it failed another test!!!

[Claretnick]

Whether it's about money or not isn't really that important. What is certain is that they place speed cameras where they can catch the most speeders. This is why speed cameras are placed on roads such as Padiham Road, dual carriageway, no pedestrians about, where people zip past at 35-40 with very little danger to anyone; and they don't put them on the 20 mph roads mentioned above that some nutter drives on at 60 mph. Is it because a multitude of 35 mph drivers are more like to kill than a single reckless nutter? Or is it just to collect extra convictions?

There is a school, St Josephs Juniors, beside the dual carriageway section of Padiham Road and there are plenty of pupils of Burnley High School and Shuttleworth College walking to and from those schools on the pavement by that stretch of road,hence why the speed limit of 30mph! I would not like my son or daughter to be hit by a driver speeding at 40mph on that road.
I also think that a good number of speeders are doing a bit more than 40mph as they plough up the outside lane.....

[dsr]

The bit I was thinking about was further up, much nearer Burnley.

But even in your area, outside the school, where's the proportionality? Anyone doing 40 mph should get their 3 points, no question. Anyone doing 31 when the road is full of children is asking for penalty points too. But 31 mph at 4 am, or at noon in the school holidays? It's extreme.

I'll tell you one thing that I'm certain of. It's safer to have drivers tootling along at about 30 mph, knowing what speed they're doing to within two or three mph and watching the road, than it would be to have drivers carefully doing exactly thirty with both eyes on the speedo. Is it safer to hit a child at 30 mph than 31 mph? Yes. Is a child safer with a driver doing 30 mph and watching the dashboard than doing 31 mph and watching the road? No.

The speed limit has been de facto 34-35 mph with zero tolerance above that, ever since the speed limit was invented. If they want to reduce it to a de facto 30 mph, then Parliament ought to be involved - it shouldn't just be up to a few random policemen.

[mybloodisclaret]

The bit I was thinking about was further up, much nearer Burnley.

But even in your area, outside the school, where's the proportionality? Anyone doing 40 mph should get their 3 points, no question. Anyone doing 31 when the road is full of children is asking for penalty points too. But 31 mph at 4 am, or at noon in the school holidays? It's extreme.

I'll tell you one thing that I'm certain of. It's safer to have drivers tootling along at about 30 mph, knowing what speed they're doing to within two or three mph and watching the road, than it would be to have drivers carefully doing exactly thirty with both eyes on the speedo. Is it safer to hit a child at 30 mph than 31 mph? Yes. Is a child safer with a driver doing 30 mph and watching the dashboard than doing 31 mph and watching the road? No.

The speed limit has been de facto 34-35 mph with zero tolerance above that, ever since the speed limit was invented. If they want to reduce it to a de facto 30 mph, then Parliament ought to be involved - it shouldn't just be up to a few random policemen.

Isn't the Road Traffic Act a piece of legislation that has gone through parliament and gained Royal ascent?

[dsr]

Isn't the Road Traffic Act a piece of legislation that has gone through parliament and gained Royal ascent?

"de facto" means practices that exist in reality, even if not recognised by official laws.

[mybloodisclaret]

"de facto" means practices that exist in reality, even if not recognised by official laws.

Impressive. A red circle with a black number inside it on a white background means do not exceed said number in mph. De facto doesn't feature as far as I can see.

[dsr]

If you're saying that in reality people have been routinely prosecuted for driving at 1 mph over the limit, then you're flat wrong. The technology did not exist to make it possible.

[Roosterbooster]

“They” will make no money because the police do not keep the revenue. If they did, maybe they’d be fully staffed.

Well whoever “they” are, “they” will make more money

[deanothedino]

Whether it's about money or not isn't really that important. What is certain is that they place speed cameras where they can catch the most speeders. This is why speed cameras are placed on roads such as Padiham Road, dual carriageway, no pedestrians about, where people zip past at 35-40 with very little danger to anyone; and they don't put them on the 20 mph roads mentioned above that some nutter drives on at 60 mph. Is it because a multitude of 35 mph drivers are more like to kill than a single reckless nutter? Or is it just to collect extra convictions?

Is it a shock that they've placed devices to catch people breaking the law in places people regularly break the law?

Wasn't camera placement previously often based on where accidents have occured? Those accidents didn't have to involve pedestrians or other vulnerable groups, could just be a place where young lads/lasses regularly went too fast and buried their car in a wall.

[Billy Balfour]

Garbage, as per usual.

I’m in the Met, and I have been a Police officer for 11 years.

I have never once been told to prioritise one crime over the next, and I never will be. The calls come in, and are graded based on a number of factors. If a suspect is on scene, and the offence is taking place right now, it will usually be an ‘immediate’ grade. If suspects have left, or the offence occurred some time before the call was made, then its normally an ‘s’ grade, which means we have to be there within the hour.

Oh no, this won't do. It doesn't fit with his crazy world view.

[keith1879]

Is it a shock that they've placed devices to catch people breaking the law in places people regularly break the law?

Wasn't camera placement previously often based on where accidents have occured? Those accidents didn't have to involve pedestrians or other vulnerable groups, could just be a place where young lads/lasses regularly went too fast and buried their car in a wall.

Even road signs (warning of junctions and bends for example) are placed (for the most part) in places where accidents have previously occurred. But that doesn't fit the ideas of the crazed conspiracy theorists.

[keith1879]

The bit I was thinking about was further up, much nearer Burnley.

But even in your area, outside the school, where's the proportionality? Anyone doing 40 mph should get their 3 points, no question. Anyone doing 31 when the road is full of children is asking for penalty points too. But 31 mph at 4 am, or at noon in the school holidays? It's extreme.

I'll tell you one thing that I'm certain of. It's safer to have drivers tootling along at about 30 mph, knowing what speed they're doing to within two or three mph and watching the road, than it would be to have drivers carefully doing exactly thirty with both eyes on the speedo. Is it safer to hit a child at 30 mph than 31 mph? Yes. Is a child safer with a driver doing 30 mph and watching the dashboard than doing 31 mph and watching the road? No.

The speed limit has been de facto 34-35 mph with zero tolerance above that, ever since the speed limit was invented. If they want to reduce it to a de facto 30 mph, then Parliament ought to be involved - it shouldn't just be up to a few random policemen.

All that has been suggested is that the zero tolerance is reduced from 35 to 30. It's only drawing the line somewhere else ....all this stuff about people having their eyes glued to the speedo will be as justified (or unjustified) wherever you draw the line. If you really believe that 35 is the de facto speed limit above which you might get caught then you will be driving at 35 with your eyes glued to the speedo.

[dsr]

All that has been suggested is that the zero tolerance is reduced from 35 to 30. It's only drawing the line somewhere else ....all this stuff about people having their eyes glued to the speedo will be as justified (or unjustified) wherever you draw the line. If you really believe that 35 is the de facto speed limit above which you might get caught then you will be driving at 35 with your eyes glued to the speedo.

Speak for yourself. You may drive purely with the intention of getting there as fast as possible without getting caught; that doesn't apply to everyone. I do really believe that traditionally the de facto speed limit has been 34-35, so I drive at 30 knowing that if I drift a mile or two over the limit for a short while, it doesn't matter. In future, it will matter, so I will need to take extra steps to ensure I don't drift over the limit.

I think what people are missing the point of, is that while the speed limit is a blunt object - the limit says 30, so 31 is illegal - this does not mean that when the road says 30, driving at 30 is safe and driving at 31 is not. There are many stretches of road where driving at 31 is safe; there are other stretches where driving at 30 is not (especially when road conditions are taken into account). Imagine two drivers - one who drives mainly at 30 but pays attention to road conditions rather than speed, and goes over 30 on wide, safe stretches of road but drives much slower when it isn't safe to do 30; the other who rigidly sticks to 30 no matter what. I know which one I would prefer to see driving past my (hypothetical) childrens' school. But he's the ne the police are going after.

[jollyjack]

To be honest it all went south after Regatta de Blanc.....

[ClaretMoffitt]

Totally agree with the OP, I have close to zero respect for police in this country, can't think of one good experience I've had with them.

[Billy Balfour]

There goes Moffitt with his ACAB tattoos.

[PaintYorkClaretnBlue]

Totally agree with the OP, I have close to zero respect for police in this country, can't think of one good experience I've had with them.

There’s probably a reason for that!

[Rileybobs]

Aren't most new cars fitted with speed limiters? I use mine all of the time when on the motorway, never felt the need to use it in 30 mph zones but it's a simple way to prevent speeding and 'clock watching'.

[Rick_Muller]

Aren't most new cars fitted with speed limiters? I use mine all of the time when on the motorway, never felt the need to use it in 30 mph zones but it's a simple way to prevent speeding and 'clock watching'.

Most cars have limiters these days as you say, but they’re not all going to be the same so some would get upset if the car in front appeared to be limited to 27mph when they want to get home in time for the footy for example. Personally I’d rather observe the limits and drive as safely as I can for the conditions - I will use the limiter on some motorways in road works and also cruise control, but they don’t make me a better driver, my 30 years experience has done that.

On a related note, I witnessed a car get “flashed” for doing approx 70mph on the M1 - the SMART Motorway has only just changed from 70 to 60 and the car had no chance to slow down (I’m talking 5 seconds or so) personally I’d be rather pi55ed off if that happens to me, but I would argue using my dashcam - but that would only work if I knew about it.

[keith1879]

Speak for yourself. You may drive purely with the intention of getting there as fast as possible without getting caught; that doesn't apply to everyone. I do really believe that traditionally the de facto speed limit has been 34-35, so I drive at 30 knowing that if I drift a mile or two over the limit for a short while, it doesn't matter. In future, it will matter, so I will need to take extra steps to ensure I don't drift over the limit.

I think what people are missing the point of, is that while the speed limit is a blunt object - the limit says 30, so 31 is illegal - this does not mean that when the road says 30, driving at 30 is safe and driving at 31 is not. There are many stretches of road where driving at 31 is safe; there are other stretches where driving at 30 is not (especially when road conditions are taken into account). Imagine two drivers - one who drives mainly at 30 but pays attention to road conditions rather than speed, and goes over 30 on wide, safe stretches of road but drives much slower when it isn't safe to do 30; the other who rigidly sticks to 30 no matter what. I know which one I would prefer to see driving past my (hypothetical) childrens' school. But he's the ne the police are going after.

No - I tend to stick to the speed limits as far as I can and like everybody else I occasionally exceed them due to something else taking my attention. I concentrate on the road ahead and try to drive according to what I see. You are (I think) deliberately misunderstanding the point that I am trying to make ....so I'm giving up. Feel free to have the last word.