Speeding is Black and White?
Discussion
If there are no grey areas and breaking the limit is black and white, then why are people allowed to be given the 10% plus two mph rule?
Surely it should be up to the driver to either invest in a Sat Nav or drive 10% minus 2mph under the limit.
By not prosecuting these people it could be argued that the courts are encouraging speeding and not upholding the law and therefore should be prosecuted themselves.
Surely it should be up to the driver to either invest in a Sat Nav or drive 10% minus 2mph under the limit.
By not prosecuting these people it could be argued that the courts are encouraging speeding and not upholding the law and therefore should be prosecuted themselves.
OK i'll bite.
so your speedo has 1mph increments, and is calibrated regularly?
You may have noticed satnavs are laggy and don't give instant figures, at 65mph i could dump the throttle and then let off and be back below the speed limit before the satnav has registered.
You have to have a margin of error, the give in the current rules is to separate those who accidentally break the speed limit and those who do it blatantly
so your speedo has 1mph increments, and is calibrated regularly?
You may have noticed satnavs are laggy and don't give instant figures, at 65mph i could dump the throttle and then let off and be back below the speed limit before the satnav has registered.
You have to have a margin of error, the give in the current rules is to separate those who accidentally break the speed limit and those who do it blatantly
Vanin said:
If there are no grey areas and breaking the limit is black and white, then why are people allowed to be given the 10% plus two mph rule?
Surely it should be up to the driver to either invest in a Sat Nav or drive 10% minus 2mph under the limit.
By not prosecuting these people it could be argued that the courts are encouraging speeding and not upholding the law and therefore should be prosecuted themselves.
there are grey areas so the remainder of your premise is simply not valid.Surely it should be up to the driver to either invest in a Sat Nav or drive 10% minus 2mph under the limit.
By not prosecuting these people it could be argued that the courts are encouraging speeding and not upholding the law and therefore should be prosecuted themselves.
The instruments the police use to measure speed have a range of tolerances so an 'allowance', for want of a better word, is employed to make sure that when any instrument with reasonable accuracy indicates a speed that shows in excess of the speed limit, the subject vehicle could not have reasonably been traveling below that limit.
Magistrates, police and prosecutors do not encourage violations by operating a tolerance, they operate in that way because it is entirely reasonable to do so. There is no encouragement or entrapment.
So your premise is wrong and your conclusion is plain daft. Are you 15 and has your dad let you loose with the wifi password?
Good luck.
Edited by tapereel on Sunday 9th August 09:50
chr15b said:
I've never understood why people assume their satnav is 100% accurate
Consumer satnav's will give a reasonably accurate reading when travelling at a steady speed when they have enough satellites. IIf you use an industrial measuring instrument that samples at 20 times per second or more then it can be relied upon.
The key to using domestic/consumer devices as a reference is to know when they will and will not be accurate and indeed how accurate.
The law is never black and white, it is always open to interpretation.
To one person the law which says you must not exceed a limit, then exceeding them by 0.0001 is breaking the law, another person might argue that being within a small margin of that number is not exceeding it, it is meeting it.
If you look at speed limits, if it was the intention of the law makers to allow people to travel at up to 30mph, then it is fairly reasonable to argue that basis for prosecution should not be 0.0001 mph over the limit, but the margin of error that a careful and competent driver might reasonably be expected to stay within when attempting to travel at the limit. This is where the ACPO's 10% comes from a fairly generous margin, which i think to most people avoids any doubt that the speed limit has definitely been exceeded. The +2mph is for device tolerance of the speed measurement, to further eliminate any doubt that the vehicle was definitely exceeding the speed limit by a fair margin.
To one person the law which says you must not exceed a limit, then exceeding them by 0.0001 is breaking the law, another person might argue that being within a small margin of that number is not exceeding it, it is meeting it.
If you look at speed limits, if it was the intention of the law makers to allow people to travel at up to 30mph, then it is fairly reasonable to argue that basis for prosecution should not be 0.0001 mph over the limit, but the margin of error that a careful and competent driver might reasonably be expected to stay within when attempting to travel at the limit. This is where the ACPO's 10% comes from a fairly generous margin, which i think to most people avoids any doubt that the speed limit has definitely been exceeded. The +2mph is for device tolerance of the speed measurement, to further eliminate any doubt that the vehicle was definitely exceeding the speed limit by a fair margin.
ging84 said:
The law is never black and white, it is always open to interpretation.
To one person the law which says you must not exceed a limit, then exceeding them by 0.0001 is breaking the law, another person might argue that being within a small margin of that number is not exceeding it, it is meeting it.
If you look at speed limits, if it was the intention of the law makers to allow people to travel at up to 30mph, then it is fairly reasonable to argue that basis for prosecution should not be 0.0001 mph over the limit, but the margin of error that a careful and competent driver might reasonably be expected to stay within when attempting to travel at the limit. This is where the ACPO's 10% comes from a fairly generous margin, which i think to most people avoids any doubt that the speed limit has definitely been exceeded. The +2mph is for device tolerance of the speed measurement, to further eliminate any doubt that the vehicle was definitely exceeding the speed limit by a fair margin.
The law can be black and white as it is say with a blood test for drink driving 81 mg means you are over the limit, no ifs and buts.To one person the law which says you must not exceed a limit, then exceeding them by 0.0001 is breaking the law, another person might argue that being within a small margin of that number is not exceeding it, it is meeting it.
If you look at speed limits, if it was the intention of the law makers to allow people to travel at up to 30mph, then it is fairly reasonable to argue that basis for prosecution should not be 0.0001 mph over the limit, but the margin of error that a careful and competent driver might reasonably be expected to stay within when attempting to travel at the limit. This is where the ACPO's 10% comes from a fairly generous margin, which i think to most people avoids any doubt that the speed limit has definitely been exceeded. The +2mph is for device tolerance of the speed measurement, to further eliminate any doubt that the vehicle was definitely exceeding the speed limit by a fair margin.
It is amazing how steadily people driving in average speed camera areas. Most doing 45 in a 50.
Vanin said:
The law can be black and white as it is say with a blood test for drink driving 81 mg means you are over the limit, no ifs and buts.
The equivalent limit for breath is 35, which is probably the more commonly used evidential reading. If you register between 35 and 40, you will walk out of the station NFPA if you were arrested for excess alcohol, so there are still shades of grey.
The Chief Constabule of Sussex remarked some years ago that motorway drivers driving safely at 80 mph would generally not be pulled by trafpol unless they were showing idiot syndromes; tailgating, endangering other users, and so on.
Certainly, when the RoSPA Diploma instructors drove/rode home in convoy the motorway speed was 80 mph max, with 30, 40 and 50 limits rigidly adhered to. 10 per cent over those was a 'fail.'
Speeding is speeding. Traffic cameras don't have any discretion, whereas Plod does/did.
The bottom line always was and is: if you speed, there may be penalties. 10 per cent plus 2 is as good a formula as any to ensure you don't spend four hours in naughty school, or get your licence autographed by a magistrate and pay through the nose at insurance renewal time.
That's about the black and white of it.
Certainly, when the RoSPA Diploma instructors drove/rode home in convoy the motorway speed was 80 mph max, with 30, 40 and 50 limits rigidly adhered to. 10 per cent over those was a 'fail.'
Speeding is speeding. Traffic cameras don't have any discretion, whereas Plod does/did.
The bottom line always was and is: if you speed, there may be penalties. 10 per cent plus 2 is as good a formula as any to ensure you don't spend four hours in naughty school, or get your licence autographed by a magistrate and pay through the nose at insurance renewal time.
That's about the black and white of it.
The choice whether to prosecute for an offence historically lies with the police. The PACE brought in an independent(ish) level above that so in effect thatere are two levels which have to be satisfied whether to prosecute a suspect.
I sat through a fascinating talk/lecture from an eminent (I was told, I had no reason to doubt this accolade despite not having heard of her) barrister on the function of the police in a democratic society. It included lots of legal justification for the three stages below.
The job of the police is to make an operational series of decisions, i.e the PC on the street. These can be divided into three:
1/ is there sufficient evidence of an offence,
2/ is there sufficient evidence to support a specific person or persons as likely to have committed the offence, and
3/ is there sufficient reason to prosecute the offender.
There are legal qualification as to what is sufficient in 1/ and 2/ that are available to all. 3/ however, gave most grounds for discussion. The black/white justification was brought in early and totally destroyed by this woman. To be fair, she must have heard them all before. Nut she totaled the 'if you can't do the crime, don't do the time' sort of thing, and 'they knew what the law was . . .'. This last brought in some superb arguments.
Once those were put to bed, the real arguments regarding discretion came on.
It was well worth-while and much of it stayed with me for years after.
With regards to speeding, however, discretion is removed with speed cameras. I'm in two minds about this. I've stopped speeders before now who have driven safely in the stretch I've followed them but were sufficiently over the limit to require action. I've caution them on the street and let them go but retained registration numbers. This was in the days of regular beat areas so I knew I'd see him again. But speeding is a regulation. It is a condition of use and discretion should take this into account. There is little excuse for speeding, other than poorly signed, that sort of thing. I driver A drives over the speed limit once, he will probably do so again.
What I used to take into consideration for motoring offences was traffic density, time of day (known as the wee small - school turnout or early mornings) that sort of thing.
I sat through a fascinating talk/lecture from an eminent (I was told, I had no reason to doubt this accolade despite not having heard of her) barrister on the function of the police in a democratic society. It included lots of legal justification for the three stages below.
The job of the police is to make an operational series of decisions, i.e the PC on the street. These can be divided into three:
1/ is there sufficient evidence of an offence,
2/ is there sufficient evidence to support a specific person or persons as likely to have committed the offence, and
3/ is there sufficient reason to prosecute the offender.
There are legal qualification as to what is sufficient in 1/ and 2/ that are available to all. 3/ however, gave most grounds for discussion. The black/white justification was brought in early and totally destroyed by this woman. To be fair, she must have heard them all before. Nut she totaled the 'if you can't do the crime, don't do the time' sort of thing, and 'they knew what the law was . . .'. This last brought in some superb arguments.
Once those were put to bed, the real arguments regarding discretion came on.
It was well worth-while and much of it stayed with me for years after.
With regards to speeding, however, discretion is removed with speed cameras. I'm in two minds about this. I've stopped speeders before now who have driven safely in the stretch I've followed them but were sufficiently over the limit to require action. I've caution them on the street and let them go but retained registration numbers. This was in the days of regular beat areas so I knew I'd see him again. But speeding is a regulation. It is a condition of use and discretion should take this into account. There is little excuse for speeding, other than poorly signed, that sort of thing. I driver A drives over the speed limit once, he will probably do so again.
What I used to take into consideration for motoring offences was traffic density, time of day (known as the wee small - school turnout or early mornings) that sort of thing.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff