Police chief 'wants drivers penalised for going 1mph over speed limit'

[Kreeeee]

Hurry up with autonomous cars, they will never speed, the police will loose all their income and funding, so they will have to cut numbers even more with tighter budgets, so there will even less police around to bother the rest of us who keep our none autonomous cars and drive like crazy people everywhere

Until the police start using all the cameras on the autonomous cars to catch you.

 

[Entai]

Until the police start using all the cameras on the autonomous cars to catch you.

But "you" (the passenger) are not in control of the fully autonomous vehicle (there is no steering wheel and no pedals) so you can never be prosecuted if the vehicle speeds

 

[Kreeeee]

But "you" (the passenger) are not in control of the fully autonomous vehicle (there is no steering wheel and no pedals) so you can never be prosecuted if the vehicle speeds

Eh?

The cameras on the autonomous cars will catch those breaking the speed limits instead of needing fixed cameras. Maybe that wasn't clear enough.

 

[Scania]

What, this real world? The one with automated cameras everywhere that just mail you a speeding fine?
If they can make a boatload of cash from it, I'm sure they'll fnd a way to enforce it.

The real world where no car has a calibrated speedometer (which is why the existing guidelines are there) there is no way such a tight limit will be upheld by any legal challenge given this fact.

Many cars read well under but equally quite a few read over.

I know this as I’m often passing cars in 50mph roadworks, I can see digital speedometers easily from my truck (which is calibrated) I can be sat @ 50mph and pass cars reading anything between 46 and 54mph on their speedometer.

A far better suggestion would be speed limiters for all vehicles,they work well for HGV’s, this could easily be triggered electronically as you pass from limit to limit but, of course, this’ll never catch on, they’d lose all the revenue from speeding fines.

 

[Rainmaker]

The real world where no car has a calibrated speedometer (which is why the existing guidelines are there) there is no way such a tight limit will be upheld by any legal challenge given this fact.

Many cars read well under but equally quite a few read over.

I know this as I’m often passing cars in 50mph roadworks, I can see digital speedometers easily from my truck (which is calibrated) I can be sat @ 50mph and pass cars reading anything between 46 and 54mph on their speedometer.

A far better suggestion would be speed limiters for all vehicles,they work well for HGV’s, this could easily be triggered electronically as you pass from limit to limit but, of course, this’ll never catch on, they’d lose all the revenue from speeding fines.

Given that by law all speedos can over-read (i.e. state 54mph when you're actually only doing 50mph), but that none can under-read (i.e. say you're doing 50mph when you're actually doing 54mph) that wouldn't be much of a defence. Having a vehicle defect might be mitigation - or might not - but it isn't a defence and you'd still be guilty.

 

[Semple]

Can't see this ever happening.

Frankly if they're that anal about trying to reduce the number of drivers speeding, they could extend the "reset timeline" for speed awareness courses. Someone correct me if i'm wrong but i believe it's after 3 years you can be offered another speeding awareness course, yet if you were dished out with points then they wouldn't be removed for 5 years?

 

[adolf hamster]

Given that by law all speedos can over-read (i.e. state 54mph when you're actually only doing 50mph), but that none can under-read (i.e. say you're doing 50mph when you're actually doing 54mph) that wouldn't be much of a defence. Having a vehicle defect might be mitigation - or might not - but it isn't a defence and you'd still be guilty.

if they want to enforce that though they'd need to add a spedometer test to the mot, because currently it's the common and accepted practice to never check/calibrate the spedometer

 

[Rainmaker]

if they want to enforce that though they'd need to add a spedometer test to the mot, because currently it's the common and accepted practice to never check/calibrate the spedometer

They already do enforce that. OEMs set the speedo calibration during manufacture, and this is done to account for varying tyres and tread depths etc etc. While the speedo isn't routinely checked once in owners' hands, that doesn't mean it's a defence to a speeding charge. As I said, it'd be mitigation at best. "Sorry, m'lud, my speedo appears to have been defective." won't get you a not guilty - because you are guilty of speeding, just with perhaps special reasons why the punishment may not be as severe as it could have been.

 

[adolf hamster]

They already do enforce that. OEMs set the speedo calibration during manufacture, and this is done to account for varying tyres and tread depths etc etc. While the speedo isn't routinely checked once in owners' hands, that doesn't mean it's a defence to a speeding charge. As I said, it'd be mitigation at best. "Sorry, m'lud, my speedo appears to have been defective." won't get you a not guilty - because you are guilty of speeding, just with perhaps special reasons why the punishment may not be as severe as it could have been.

and yet sudden mechanical failure is a legal defence for crashing a vehicle

 

[Entai]

and yet sudden mechanical failure is a legal defence for crashing a vehicle

Only if that sudden mechanical failure can be proven. Looking at a car post crash it is quite easy to detect major mechanical failures.

However not so easy to prove after a crash that the speedo in your car at the moment of the crash, was reading incorrectly.

Granted it is easier to prove an incorrect speedo with a working car, so yo might be able to do that if you think it is a defence.

Also worth remembering of course, if your speedo is reading incorrectly like that, it is technically against the law, so you are driving an unroadworthy car, so you are up the creek without a paddle on that factor as well as having been caught speeding.

 

[adolf hamster]

Only if that sudden mechanical failure can be proven. Looking at a car post crash it is quite easy to detect major mechanical failures.

However not so easy to prove after a crash that the speedo in your car at the moment of the crash, was reading incorrectly.

Granted it is easier to prove an incorrect speedo with a working car, so yo might be able to do that if you think it is a defence.

Also worth remembering of course, if your speedo is reading incorrectly like that, it is technically against the law, so you are driving an unroadworthy car, so you are up the creek without a paddle on that factor as well as having been caught speeding.

indeed, and how can we know for sure that the speedo was checked and calibrated correctly? well if it's done as part of the yearly mot as are other safety related mechanical concerns then we'd know before the fact (or at least we'd be as sure as is considered satisfactory for other mechanical faults)

 

[ttaskmaster]

The real world where no car has a calibrated speedometer (which is why the existing guidelines are there) there is no way such a tight limit will be upheld by any legal challenge given this fact.

They're still only guidelines and I believe The Law now sets out fines that start from 1mph over the limit.... The way is already paved.
Now this might all just be a tactic to get humans out of the driving seat and expensive autonomous vehicles everywhere, with manufacturers kindly "donating" lots of money to Police forces... you know, now that 'traffic cops are no longer needed', and all.... or it might just all be coincidence.
But whichever way you look at it, I'd not be even slightly surprised if that's how things go one day soon!!!

 

[Dolph]

The single biggest issue with this man's position is that it will do virtually nothing to improve road safety, because statistically exceeding the speed limit is very rarely a factor in accidents (circa 5%)

https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/safety#a9

If he was serious about making roads safer, making it harder for pedestrians to enter the roadway, and banning or restricting motorcycles and pushbikes would be far more effective.

 

[Entai]

indeed, and how can we know for sure that the speedo was checked and calibrated correctly? well if it's done as part of the yearly mot as are other safety related mechanical concerns then we'd know before the fact (or at least we'd be as sure as is considered satisfactory for other mechanical faults)

Even manufactures do not calibrate each speedo to each individual car, they calculate what gearing etc the speedo would need to read within the law criteria for that make and model, during the build process and all cars of that make and model then receive the same speedometer.

Even checking the accuracy of a speedo means taking the car out onto a test track and driving it very consistently along measured distances and measured timings at various speeds, using calibrated and validated measuring equipment that is neither handy or cheap.

If your speedo is found to be inaccurate outside of legal criteria, then to calibrate a mechanical speedometer is rather expensive and time consuming, and often involves taking apart the gearbox or differential to change out gearing, not something that could easily be incorporated into an MOT, and we will be the ones having to foot the increased bill.

Calibration of a digital speedometer is a bit easier, but again only if you have all the right equipment and knowledge.

Also who is going to do all the research to determine how long a speedo stays accurate and what happens if it slips out of accuracy, who is then liable ? there are way to many variables to make any of that a reasonable practice.

Far far easier for all concerned to just make sure the driver of the vehicle has all the burden of making sure they stay under the posted limit.

So in a 30 limit drive with your speedo showing 25 and it is as near to impossible as you will ever get that you will never be going over 30.

 

[Entai]

The single biggest issue with this man's position is that it will do virtually nothing to improve road safety, because statistically exceeding the speed limit is very rarely a factor in accidents (circa 5%)

https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/safety#a9

If he was serious about making roads safer, making it harder for pedestrians to enter the roadway, and banning or restricting motorcycles and pushbikes would be far more effective.

Nice quoting there just pulling out the bit that shows what you want to show

Read the rest of the article you linked to and you will see that OK 5% of accidents involve exceeding the speed limit, but those 5% result in 15% of all fatalities.

Stop that 5% and 15 people out of 100 do not die, that's worth working towards in my book.

Your article also states

"At least one of exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions was reported in 11 per cent of all accidents and these accidents accounted for 24 per cent of all fatalities."


Now that is 24 people out of 100 who would not die, if everyone on the roads never exceeded any speed limits, or found themselves driving to fast for the conditions, which lets be fair, is one in the same thing in a vast majority of situations.

 

[Nasher]

Eh?

The cameras on the autonomous cars will catch those breaking the speed limits instead of needing fixed cameras. Maybe that wasn't clear enough.

I doubt it, you can't get reliable readings like that.

Besides they won't even act on dashcam footage most of the time because it's difficult to use it as evidence in court. No chance they are going to taking readings from AVs.

 

[Dolph]

Nice quoting there just pulling out the bit that shows what you want to show

Read the rest of the article you linked to and you will see that OK 5% of accidents involve exceeding the speed limit, but those 5% result in 15% of all fatalities.

Stop that 5% and 15 people out of 100 do not die, that's worth working towards in my book.

Your article also states

"At least one of exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions was reported in 11 per cent of all accidents and these accidents accounted for 24 per cent of all fatalities."


Now that is 24 people out of 100 who would not die, if everyone on the roads never exceeded any speed limits, or found themselves driving to fast for the conditions, which lets be fair, is one in the same thing in a vast majority of situations.

Well, clearly it isn't one and the same thing, the statistics you quote show that, as the cause of accidents more than doubled when you include driving too fast for the conditions.

Using your logic, we could reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries by 79 out of every 100 by preventing them from entering the road, as This is the number of deaths attributable to pedestrians failing to look or being reckless. Makes the 15 look insignificant really.

 

[Nasher]

Likewise we could reduce the number of pedestrian injries in London by quite a lot by banning cyclists

People get injuries while out jogging, which costs the NHS. So maybe lets ban jogging?

There's always figures available for people willing to do a bit of spin.

 

[Entai]

Well, clearly it isn't one and the same thing, the statistics you quote show that, as the cause of accidents more than doubled when you include driving too fast for the conditions.

Using your logic, we could reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries by 79 out of every 100 by preventing them from entering the road, as This is the number of deaths attributable to pedestrians failing to look or being reckless. Makes the 15 look insignificant really.

The 5% of accidents you quoted, are only where there is definitive proof that exceeding the speed limit was the major contributing factor.

The 11% I quoted is where there is no definitive proof, that one particular factor contributed, but it was definitely either one or the other of, exceeding the speed limit, and/or, driving too fast for the conditions.

Which by definition means it is entirely possible that all that 11% of accidents causing 24% of all fatalities, were caused by exceeding the speed limit, just that no one is certain, so they cover themselves.

 

[Entai]

I doubt it, you can't get reliable readings like that.

Besides they won't even act on dashcam footage most of the time because it's difficult to use it as evidence in court. No chance they are going to taking readings from AVs.

Dash cam's are very admissible evidence in courts. They get used more and more and often are the ONLY evidence and cause the conviction of many people alone.
Dash cams can provide invaluable information in a case that would otherwise have been left to testimony and conjecture, his word against yours.
In 2015 the UK courts saw its first jail sentence handed out off the back of incriminating dash cam footage. The dangerous driver wasn't caught red-handed by police, but instead was only arrested after police were shown dash cam footage from a concerned citizen.
Germany followed suit in 2016, when dash cam footage was the ONLY piece of evidence in the conviction of a driver who ran a red light.
German privacy laws differ greatly to our own, but the conviction was upheld even after being taken to a higher court on appeal.
It's clear that dash cam footage is being taken more and more seriously as time goes by. You'll frequently see dash cam footage on local news websites as communities use it to work on tracking down law-breakers.
Police have also begun using dash cam footage to aid in pleas for witnesses.
In 2017 alone dash cam footage helped bring to justice a Humberside hit-and-runner, a Yorkshire dangerous driver, a West Yorkshire road rage assault, a Surrey roadside scam and a West Midlands carjacking, to name but 5 I can think of off the top of my head.

AV's have many other sensors backing up the camera footage, so will be even more evidence to be used against anyone.

New technology in many areas is being used as evidence in criminal trials. For instance watch what you say around your Amazon Echo or Dot, the microphone is always on and listening out for any instructions that are given to it. But it isn’t supposed start recording or sending any of the things it hears to the internet until it hears a wake word – by default, when someone around it says “Alexa” – although that can go wrong when it misinterprets speech.
All conversations are sent to Amazon’s servers so that they can be understood and then acted upon.
Police in the States have already requested the data from an Amazon Echo speaker that was in the house of a man being investigated for murder, according to Investigators they believed that the speaker might have captured important data about what happened the night of the attack.
Amazon was issued with two search warrants, according to court filings, but refused to share any information captured by the smart devices. however the police said that detectives were able to take data from the device itself, and the evidence gained did help to convict the man.