79mph in a 70 limit

[motoroller]

I have a question regarding the new rules - they specifically say 71mph in a 70. Does this mean the 10%+2 rule has been discarded?!?!?

[SS2.]

New rules ?

[motoroller]

SS2. said:

New rules ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39686894

[anonymous-user]

motoroller said:

I have a question regarding the new rules - they specifically say 71mph in a 70. Does this mean the 10%+2 rule has been discarded?!?!?

10% + 2 is a guideline only and police officers have discretion whether to follow or not. I'm not sure that that has changed.

[GloriaGTI]

motoroller said:

I have a question regarding the new rules - they specifically say 71mph in a 70. Does this mean the 10%+2 rule has been discarded?!?!?

Sure seems that way:

[SS2.]

motoroller said:

SS2. said:

New rules ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39686894

Revised penalty guidelines for the most serious category of speeding offences.

Nothing has changed regarding the maximum fines which can be imposed for speeding, nor indeed any 'rules' regarding enforcement thresholds.

[esxste]

GloriaGTI said:

Sure seems that way:

The law is that 71 in a 70 is speeding and therefore you can technically be prosecuted for it, and you would be liable for a Band A punishment if you were.

Whether the guidelines to police forces that stipulate 10% + 2mph still apply, time will tell. Regardless; it shouldn't be forgotten that they are only guidelines...

[cmaguire]

Every report I've heard on TV or radio Bangs on about 51+ in a 30 limit or 101+ on the Motorway as if the level of the 'crime' is of equal measure.
Somewhat depressing if this is what the General Public really believe.

[4040vision]

GloriaGTI said:

motoroller said:

I have a question regarding the new rules - they specifically say 71mph in a 70. Does this mean the 10%+2 rule has been discarded?!?!?

Sure seems that way:

Sentencing guidelines are not new rules or guidance for police carrying out enforcement.

Do t forget, there are no rules.

[4040vision]

cmaguire said:

Every report I've heard on TV or radio Bangs on about 51+ in a 30 limit or 101+ on the Motorway as if the level of the 'crime' is of equal measure.
Somewhat depressing if this is what the General Public really believe.

The sentencing certainly suggests they are. The judiciary don't work to your opinion, to which you are of course entitled.

[GloriaGTI]

GloriaGTI said:

motoroller said:

I have a question regarding the new rules - they specifically say 71mph in a 70. Does this mean the 10%+2 rule has been discarded?!?!?

Sure seems that way:

I can see from looking into this further, all the new regulations means is that the magistrates have the power to fine you up to 175% of your weekly wages now, whereas before it was up to 125%.

I doubt the Police's attitude to speeding will have changed overnight. How are they going to police every single driver that exceeds 70 to overtake a lane 2 hogger, for example? Near on impossible.

Therefore, I doubt anyone is likely to get stopped doing between 71 and 77 on a motorway or a dual carriageway (where NSL is permitted).

I had a NIP from Hants Const last year for 82 in a 70 on my motorbike, from a handheld in a layby on the A31 westbound. On the letter it had the speeds at which they prosecute and outlined the fine/action taken. Will try and find it but can remember action was taken when you exceeded 77, so not sure what this 10% plus 2mph rule is about. Maybe that's specific to Hants.

Took the SAC and really enjoyed it, I must admit. Two great gents carrying out the course. Mostly women in the group too! We'll not go into that though!
I am certainly more conscious of my speed now, particularly in built up areas (20/30/40 limits) - there is no excuse for speeding in these areas, in my opinion - unless it's a proven/genuine emergency.

I do think a little discretion is to be used by traffic police if you're stopped for speeding, based on the speed/road conditions/time of day etc

Edited by GloriaGTI on Monday 24th April 12:43

[cmaguire]

4040vision said:

The sentencing certainly suggests they are. The judiciary don't work to your opinion, to which you are of course entitled.

Perhaps you might tell me why you think exceeding the limit by 44% on the safest roads in the country is in any way as serious as exceeding the limit by 70% on the most dangerous roads in the country....

It isn't to anyone with any sense of course, but please explain.

[surveyor_101]

Reminds me of this




"Our speedometer has melted and as a result it's very hard to see with any degree of accuracy exactly how fast we were going."

[4040vision]

cmaguire said:

4040vision said:

The sentencing certainly suggests they are. The judiciary don't work to your opinion, to which you are of course entitled.

Perhaps you might tell me why you think exceeding the limit by 44% on the safest roads in the country is in any way as serious as exceeding the limit by 70% on the most dangerous roads in the country....

It isn't to anyone with any sense of course, but please explain.

Maybe you can try explaining your view first.

[BertBert]

No pleading is involved. You just name the driver. You are not contesting whether you are innocent or guilty.

xjay1337 said:

Plead guilty, take the SAC.

[cmaguire]

4040vision said:

Maybe you can try explaining your view first.

Fairly obvious I would have thought, much like your numbers driven crusade against speeding that conveniently gravitates to those areas with easy pickings to the detriment of the areas where the speed might actually matter.

[4040vision]

cmaguire said:

4040vision said:

Maybe you can try explaining your view first.

Fairly obvious I would have thought, much like your numbers driven crusade against speeding that conveniently gravitates to those areas with easy pickings to the detriment of the areas where the speed might actually matter.

It isn't obvious at all though so your view is complete bollix. As I mentioned above, you are entitled to your own opinion. It doesn't mean your opinion is based on fact though, yours is an outrageous and unfounded assumption.

[cmaguire]

4040vision said:

It isn't obvious at all though so your view is complete bollix. As I mentioned above, you are entitled to your own opinion. It doesn't mean your opinion is based on fact though, yours is an outrageous and unfounded assumption.

Why don't you just answer my patently obvious question? It couldn't have been worded any clearer.
Preaching and gloating appear to be your major motivations for being here.

[cmaguire]

cmaguire said:

Perhaps you might tell me why you think exceeding the limit by 44% on the safest roads in the country is in any way as serious as exceeding the limit by 70% on the most dangerous roads in the country....

It isn't to anyone with any sense of course, but please explain.

Here it is for you again.

[vsonix]

Digby said:

vsonix said:

34 in a 30 in Norfolk (hand-held camera), did the SAC in Devon.

I would have taken the points...because screw them.

Being fined for something so pathetic would just make me go faster in areas I knew were not covered....because screw them.

Yup. I was pretty livid especially as it was very much a speed 'trap' i.e. the speed limit change was well outside the end of the built-up area and the scamera operator was basically hiding behind the NSL sign zapping people as they increased speed as they left the village. Yes I know that the law doesn't allow you to increase speed to meet the change in limit but in everyday driving it doesn't always work like that. It might have been a more serious figure had I not actually spotted the hi-viz and taken my foot off the gas again. I had done a steady 30 all the way through the village, I don't break limits in built-up residential areas on principle so it was double annoying that I got pinged.