68 in a 60

[BertBert]

Sorry, that is not correct.

10%+2 (WTF are you lot on about with the 'maths' lesson) originated as the point at which the officer's discretion stopped. So up to (but below) 10%+2 they had the discretion not to 'prosecute'. At 10%+2 that discretion finished.

In theory, you can be prosecuted at any speed over the limit. In practice the 10%+2 as a guideline seems to hold fast.

Bert

av185 said:

The 2 mph leeway above the ten percent is discretionary...dependent upon who is bringing the prosecution.

So a prosecution CAN be brought at 67 mph in a 60.

[av185]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I always understood the ten per cent was to cover possible speedo error and that the plus two mph leeway was discretionary depending upon who was prosecuting.

[cmaguire]

In any event at 68mph or above trouble's coming so the only escape for the OP is whether they fulfilled their obligations within the correct timeframe.
Which hopefully they didn't.

[sherbertdip]

av185 said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I always understood the ten per cent was to cover possible speedo error and that the plus two mph leeway was discretionary depending upon who was prosecuting.

You are wrong, a speedo can read over but never under actual speed, so has nothing to do with 10%.

[anonymous-user]

sherbertdip said:

av185 said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I always understood the ten per cent was to cover possible speedo error and that the plus two mph leeway was discretionary depending upon who was prosecuting.

You are wrong, a speedo can read over but never under actual speed, so has nothing to do with 10%.

Indeed, but going on av185 previous posting style, he'll argue about this for page after page. I wonder where the profile pic and "junior supercars" disappeared off to......seemed to coincide with the C124ppy ban.

[tapereel]

I don't understand why speculation is preferred here rather than looking at the police guidance.

https://www.cambs-police.co.uk/roadsafety/docs/201...

[cmaguire]

tapereel said:

I don't understand why speculation is preferred here rather than looking at the police guidance.

https://www.cambs-police.co.uk/roadsafety/docs/201...

They appear to apply the highest level of discretion when deciding whether to follow their own guidelines (I'm not referring to the speed chart, but the rest of the document).

[tapereel]

cmaguire said:

tapereel said:

I don't understand why speculation is preferred here rather than looking at the police guidance.

https://www.cambs-police.co.uk/roadsafety/docs/201...

They appear to apply the highest level of discretion when deciding whether to follow their own guidelines (I'm not referring to the speed chart, but the rest of the document).

I don't understand anything about what you wrote in that statement.

[cmaguire]

tapereel said:

I don't understand anything about what you wrote in that statement.

I read the document you linked.
It is part truth/propoganda/nonsense/naive/blinkered.
They apply a fair bit of poetic license in its application anyway.

[BertBert]

Is it just possible that the people who wrote it actually want speed limits to limit speed? And perhaps regard the alternative of unlimited speeds to be undesirable for the public interest?

Bert

[cmaguire]

BertBert said:

Is it just possible that the people who wrote it actually want speed limits to limit speed? And perhaps regard the alternative of unlimited speeds to be undesirable for the public interest?

Bert

Who said anything about unlimited speeds?

[tapereel]

cmaguire said:

tapereel said:

I don't understand anything about what you wrote in that statement.

I read the document you linked.
It is part truth/propoganda/nonsense/naive/blinkered.
They apply a fair bit of poetic license in its application anyway.

Im still baffled by your banter.
What I do know is the people who wrote it and what they wrote as well as the objectives. It is quite plain and it is that which guides the police.
Perhaps you could offer your services now it needs to be updated. I can't think of why they would need you to comment though.

[singlecoil]

cmaguire said:

BertBert said:

Is it just possible that the people who wrote it actually want speed limits to limit speed? And perhaps regard the alternative of unlimited speeds to be undesirable for the public interest?

Bert

Who said anything about unlimited speeds?

That's what your posts on this subject (whenever it arises) imply.

[av185]

bmw535i said:

Stuff
:

And we still await with eager anticipation the posting of your 'delightful lifestyle' Chavplate photo that you promised.....

[anonymous-user]

av185 said:

bmw535i said:

Stuff
:

And we still await with eager anticipation the posting of your 'delightful lifestyle' Chavplate photo that you promised.....

Eh? Who's "we" and where did I promise any such thing?

Meanwhile back on thread.......

[cmaguire]

singlecoil said:

That's what your posts on this subject (whenever it arises) imply.

I hadn't noticed

[tapereel]

cmaguire said:

singlecoil said:

That's what your posts on this subject (whenever it arises) imply.

I hadn't noticed

Perhaps the way you meant it was that limits should be 'unenforced' or driver's should 'self-regulate'.

[cmaguire]

tapereel said:

Perhaps the way you meant it was that limits should be 'unenforced' or driver's should 'self-regulate'.

I think the attitude and approach to speed enforcement and limits was about right in the eighties, bar the 70 limit being at least 10mph too slow.
Cameras have brought with them a whole lot of baggage that has only tenuous if any links to their claimed purpose in many instances.

[singlecoil]

cmaguire said:

tapereel said:

Perhaps the way you meant it was that limits should be 'unenforced' or driver's should 'self-regulate'.

I think the attitude and approach to speed enforcement and limits was about right in the eighties, bar the 70 limit being at least 10mph too slow.
Cameras have brought with them a whole lot of baggage that has only tenuous if any links to their claimed purpose in many instances.

The claimed purpose is to catch people who are speeding. Hardly tenuous.

[tapereel]

singlecoil said:

cmaguire said:

tapereel said:

Perhaps the way you meant it was that limits should be 'unenforced' or driver's should 'self-regulate'.

I think the attitude and approach to speed enforcement and limits was about right in the eighties, bar the 70 limit being at least 10mph too slow.
Cameras have brought with them a whole lot of baggage that has only tenuous if any links to their claimed purpose in many instances.

The claimed purpose is to catch people who are speeding. Hardly tenuous.

And by that function deter drivers who would chose to exceed the limit if no risk of detection was perceived. Still not tenuous in the least.