New speeding fines

[Kenai]

I'm struggling to work out if the 10% + 2 rule still applies then? More to the point I'm getting asked a lot if it will do, and this seems to be the bit that is getting confusing.

So, is what I'm being told about getting a £1000 fine for doing 31 in a 30 true or not? I'd imagine it isn't but can't work out if they've actually lowered the discretionary limits.

It's theoretically true, should you end up managing to get taken to court for doing 31.

I think part of the issue is, that from a legal standpoint 31mph is speeding. It's against the law and you COULD get done for it. You won't but you could, in theory. Whilst ACPO guidelines can say things like 10%+2mph, they can't do that in the laws and frameworks that define the punishments, so they have to start from 1mph over. If they started at 5mph over, then they've effectively made it law that you can go 5mph faster than the limit rather than just a prosecution guideline as it is now.

If you look up the current laws i'm sure they all start at 1mph over the limit too but you won't find anyone who has been done for it.

 

[geekman]

There's breaking the limit, and then there's taking the ****. I'm sorry but 99 on a DC is outrageous. Because you wrote there was a policeman hiding and a " " it made it look, to me, that you're only sorry because you got caught.

I do more than that every day, can I get 365 outrages please?

If you look up the current laws i'm sure they all start at 1mph over the limit too but you won't find anyone who has been done for it.

You'll find plenty of people on the internet who've been done for it in their own minds

 

[Boycey0211]

It's theoretically true, should you end up managing to get taken to court for doing 31.

I think part of the issue is, that from a legal standpoint 31mph is speeding. It's against the law and you COULD get done for it. You won't but you could, in theory. Whilst ACPO guidelines can say things like 10%+2mph, they can't do that in the laws and frameworks that define the punishments, so they have to start from 1mph over. If they started at 5mph over, then they've effectively made it law that you can go 5mph faster than the limit rather than just a prosecution guideline as it is now.

If you look up the current laws i'm sure they all start at 1mph over the limit too but you won't find anyone who has been done for it.

I understand where its comes from, and generally speaking I don't speed and if I do its completely unintentional and not 30pmh over the limit as posted here.

I'm just going to carry on as I do now, never had a ticket and don't intend on picking one up.

 

[theone8181]

I do more than that every day, can I get 365 outrages please?



You'll find plenty of people on the internet who've been done for it in their own minds

Ive just been watching the grand tour with the SUV's and they managed 150 on a DC autobarn (not sure on spelling) and they are still alive and didnt have a crash so why is 99 on our roads dangerous? My view is its everybody else not expecting the speed and being unable to judge when changing lanes.

 

[Housey]

There's breaking the limit, and then there's taking the ****. I'm sorry but 99 on a DC is outrageous. Because you wrote there was a policeman hiding and a " " it made it look, to me, that you're only sorry because you got caught.

Outrageous, really?

 

[Rilot]

I wish the media would report this correctly. Even the BBC are not telling people that it's only if it goes to court and doesn't affect FPNs.

 

[ttaskmaster]

That has nothing to do with the statement I made, though.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about speed limit enforcement and putting the decision in drivers' hands...

I also disagree with you. People don't tend to speed because it's unlikely they'll get pulled, they tend to 'speed' where conditions allow for a higher speed than the artificially low (often politically motivated) posted limit.

So the '13 Bends of Death' near Reading, for example, where the posted limit is 50mph and people do up to 130mph because conditions supposedly allow this.... why do you think they're called the 13 Bends of DEATH...? People in Reading aren't exactly given to overdramatised naming conventions.
I believe at least one member here already spoke of his experiences being pulled for doing close on double the limit along that particular road.

In many cases the current limit will be 20mph or 30mph lower than it was five years ago on the same road anyway!

Yes, and motorways are usually designed to cope with traffic doing up to 230mph... doesn't mean the people are capable of handling it.
People have already proven they cannot be trusted on the roads even with limits and guidelines. Do you really want to turn them loose with absolutely no supervision and just the promise of paying the price if they get it wrong?
Will you still want that when they kill your kids or leave you a complete vegetable just because they wanted to go a bit faster?

The max speed signs on the approach to bends are only advisory. The driver has the same choice with or without a posted speed (advisory or otherwise) - drive to the prevailing conditions, or get it wrong and potentially pay the price.

The most immediate and obvious defence is that they didn't know there was black ice, that the bend tightened, that a car was coming the other way, etc.
At least with these signs, we can say we told them so and leave them no excuses.

 

[adolf hamster]

Ive just been watching the grand tour with the SUV's and they managed 150 on a DC autobarn (not sure on spelling) and they are still alive and didnt have a crash so why is 99 on our roads dangerous? My view is its everybody else not expecting the speed and being unable to judge when changing lanes.

it's autobahn

interestingly i had a conversation recently with a fellow here who thought it was a bad idea for me to bring my car over on the autobahns because we're not used to the speed, but think about it- at some point a learner driver in germany with little experience of the autobahn or driving in general is going to have to go on there (i found out apparently they're made to do their first trip with an instructor- how sensible).

thing is, speed in and of itself isn't dangerous, crashing into things is dangerous and what should we have our eyes on- the road or the tachometer?

 

[Gaygle]

There's breaking the limit, and then there's taking the ****. I'm sorry but 99 on a DC is outrageous. Because you wrote there was a policeman hiding and a " " it made it look, to me, that you're only sorry because you got caught.

99mph on a dual carriageway is hardly "outrageous" on a dry, clear road in a BMW M3. This is what the government still haven't cottoned onto when it comes to speed - context is everything. They probably don't want to cotton on either, because speeding fines net the HM Treasury a lot of money each year. 99mph in a Peugeot 106, on a busy dual carriageway, in the pouring rain, whilst you're sat 3 ft from the car in front of you is outrageous and hugely more dangerous, yet the speeds are the same.

It's no secret that in this country, and many countries, driving offences are so disproportionately punished compared to criminal offences, which harm society far more. The simple truth behind this is that a lot of people who commit criminal offences have nothing, and are very difficult to get money out of for fines/compensation - but most people who drive obviously do have money to pay fines easily and quickly.

If you look up the current laws i'm sure they all start at 1mph over the limit too but you won't find anyone who has been done for it.

Indeed.

Interestingly, although you can theoretically be done for being 1 mph over the limit, physically you cannot as most if not all speed devices state +/- 1 or 2 mph on the manufacturer guidance.

 

[Gaygle]

I'm struggling to work out if the 10% + 2 rule still applies then? More to the point I'm getting asked a lot if it will do, and this seems to be the bit that is getting confusing.

So, is what I'm being told about getting a £1000 fine for doing 31 in a 30 true or not? I'd imagine it isn't but can't work out if they've actually lowered the discretionary limits.

The first speed you are likely to be caught at is 10%+2 by a camera van. Individual officers operating a speed gun will often only get people going 25-30% over the limit. Speed awareness courses (for anything up to 10%+9) and fixed penalty notices are staying exactly the same. This will only affect people whose speed is so far over the limit that it would require them to go to court, ie. 50mph+ in a 30, 66mph+ in a 40, 76mph in a 50, 86mph+ in a 60, 96mph+ in a 70.

 

[Boycey0211]

The first speed you are likely to be caught at is 10%+2 by a camera van. Individual officers operating a speed gun will often only get people going 25-30% over the limit. Speed awareness courses (for anything up to 10%+9) and fixed penalty notices are staying exactly the same. This will only affect people whose speed is so far over the limit that it would require them to go to court, ie. 50mph+ in a 30, 66mph+ in a 40, 76mph in a 50, 86mph+ in a 60, 96mph+ in a 70.

Thats what I thought, thanks.

 

[Akagi]

So here we go again, yes? The Road Laws... they're more like guidelines, anyway!!

The road rules are rules. The enforcement criteria are guidelines.

It is a subtle difference, but an important one.

 

[geekman]

Ive just been watching the grand tour with the SUV's and they managed 150 on a DC autobarn (not sure on spelling) and they are still alive and didnt have a crash so why is 99 on our roads dangerous? My view is its everybody else not expecting the speed and being unable to judge when changing lanes.

Yes, I'd say that's exactly the problem. But as the faster driver it's not hard to lift off / cover the brake when approaching a couple of cars in the inside lane. In many cases you can even keep a clear lane between yourself and the other cars which reduces the risk even more. The only times I've had to really slam on during motorway driving have been in busy traffic at 50/70 MPH when people can pull straight into you or emerge from slip roads without giving way etc.

 

[Rainmaker]

So the '13 Bends of Death' near Reading, for example, where the posted limit is 50mph and people do up to 130mph because conditions supposedly allow this.... why do you think they're called the 13 Bends of DEATH...? People in Reading aren't exactly given to overdramatised naming conventions.

Well the conditions either allow it or they don't, surely? So anyone driving to the road conditions is going to be just fine whether that speed was 130mph or 3mph. Anyone getting it wrong is going to have an accident regardless of the posted limit. Does everyone who does 'up to 130mph' on that road automatically crash? If not your argument just fell on its face. Has anyone ever exceeded the speed limit on that road and lived? If so it does suggest that the road conditions there can allow a higher speed, but that some people aren't driving sensibly to the very conditions you refer. Do the '13 bends of DEATH' kill every person who drives through them? I find it amusing you talk about the people of Reading not being prone to drama, but then emphasising the '13 Bends of DEATH'.

People drive to the conditions every single time they get in the car and drive. It's how we manage to arrive at B from A. According to most statistics, about 50% of them were breaking the speed on the stick, yet they arrive at B nonetheless.

I believe at least one member here already spoke of his experiences being pulled for doing close on double the limit along that particular road.

Pulled over, or crashed and killed in a fireball? If he survived perfectly well then he's already jumped all over your argument that the 'Bends of DEATH' can't be driven faster than the posted limit without incident. Pulled over just means he was spotted breaking the arbitrary limit. It doesn't legitimise that limit in itself.

Yes, and motorways are usually designed to cope with traffic doing up to 230mph... doesn't mean the people are capable of handling it.
People have already proven they cannot be trusted on the roads even with limits and guidelines.

So we're back to driver education and driver skill. The government's own statistics bear out that the vast majority of drivers are perfectly capable of making sane decisions about their speed and the prevailing conditions. Otherwise, you'd die every time you got into the car (and it'd be physically impossible to drive with a broken speedo). In fact for 50 years the speed limits were set by drivers own opinions on a road, using the 85th percentile speed. That sounds like a pretty big lump of faith placed in the driving public, doesn't it? Accidents and fatalities fell year on year for the 50 years this method was used. Then the camera brigade came in and lowered the limits artificially. What happened? Accidents and fatalities rose year on year, for the first time in 50 years, since then.

Do you really want to turn them loose with absolutely no supervision and just the promise of paying the price if they get it wrong?
Will you still want that when they kill your kids or leave you a complete vegetable just because they wanted to go a bit faster?

A nonsensical appeal to emotion with no basis in fact whatsoever. Drivers are already turned loose with no supervision. About half of those drivers exceed the arbitrary speed limits every single day, even in urban areas. My children are still alive and I'm still not a vegetable (unless you ask my wife). Driving to the speed limit blindly would result in a crash pretty damn quickly. Drivers use road sense to vary their speed, and this works both sides of the said limit.

If we went back to a system of town limits but derestricted extra-urban roads, no extra children are likely to die in a fireball. Ask our kin on the Isle of Man. Even if we removed town limits, with careless and dangerous driving laws there's still the same potential for enforcement and sensible driving as there is today. After all even with a posted limit 50% of drivers exceed it already, but they don't tear through town centres at 100mph because (1) they know it's retarded and (2) they'd be prosecuted for dangerous driving - an offence which would still exist whether the posted limit as 10 or 'drive sensibly, thank you'.

The most immediate and obvious defence is that they didn't know there was black ice, that the bend tightened, that a car was coming the other way, etc.
At least with these signs, we can say we told them so and leave them no excuses.

Think about that for a moment. Are you suggesting that black ice, a bend that tightened (why are people not using the limit point analysis, taught by every ADI in the UK, which makes it impossible for bends to catch you out like that?), or a car coming the other way are excuses for crashing if you did listen to the advisory sign, but not an excuse if you didn't?!

"I've just spun off this soaking wet road and plowed into a car full of saintly children and kittens, but it's OK - I was only doing 40 cos the sign told me to, and the bend tightened up"... Or "I did the speed the bend required and permitted, but I'm not explaining my actions to anyone because I didn't crash as I'm not an idiot"?

Also I'm not sure what your 'a car was coming the other way' statement is about. If you don't have visibility around a bend you'd be on your own side of the road, no? I mean off siding to take a better line when the visibility is there is no problem at all, but if there's a bend where you can''t see oncoming traffic I'll certainly be in my own lane and able to stop in a distance I can see to be clear on my own side of the road... I'm honestly not sure where you're going with this but from your post you don't come across as the world's most confident driver. In fact, you sound like you have a real authoritarian streak when it comes to driving, even if your opinions aren't borne out by real world data. Ah... You're a local councillor and I claim my £5.

 

[Alex_6n2]

Rainmaker, ever considered running for office and becoming Minister for transport? Some sane decisions might actually get made then....

 

[Rainmaker]

Rainmaker, ever considered running for office and becoming Minister for transport? Some sane decisions might actually get made then....

No ta, I'm allergic to politicians.

 

[adolf hamster]

No ta, I'm allergic to politicians.

thusly lies the problem with democracy- the people who could do it sensibly dont want to and the people that want to don't do it sensibly

 

[MooMoo444]

"I've just spun off this soaking wet road and plowed into a car full of saintly children and kittens

Those are the best ones. Worth the most points.

 

[ttaskmaster]

but most people who drive obviously do have money to pay fines easily and quickly.

Government goes for the easy targets... No news there.

The road rules are rules. The enforcement criteria are guidelines.
It is a subtle difference, but an important one.

For a human cop, perhaps, but most speeders are caught and fined by robots.

Well the conditions either allow it or they don't, surely?

'The Conditions' don't factor in driver ability or vehicle type, capability and condition. They can't, because there are too many variables. One of the big factors is oncoming vehicles understeering and forcing an otherwise perfect driver off the road enough to crash. That's not predictable, so to combat this they have things like max speed signs up.

So anyone driving to the road conditions is going to be just fine whether that speed was 130mph or 3mph.

Kinda hard to skid out and off the road at 3mph, don't you think?

Anyone getting it wrong is going to have an accident regardless of the posted limit.

Not at all. You have a far greater window in which to correct your vehicle at 50mph than you do at 130.

Does everyone who does 'up to 130mph' on that road automatically crash? If not your argument just fell on its face.

No, they do not.
Similarly not everyone who does 190 down the Autobahn crashes.... but when they do the results are far more destructive than those who crash at 50...
Speed is not the killer, but it IS a big factor in deciding the outcome.

Has anyone ever exceeded the speed limit on that road and lived?

Has anyone ever run across the motorway and lived?
Has anyone tried to do it and died?
What's your point?

I find it amusing you talk about the people of Reading not being prone to drama, but then emphasising the '13 Bends of DEATH'.

This was done to highlight how bad the road is and how it's not to be taken lightly... as in, they call it that for a good reason, not because it sounds cool.

People drive to the conditions every single time they get in the car and drive. It's how we manage to arrive at B from A. According to most statistics, about 50% of them were breaking the speed on the stick, yet they arrive at B nonetheless.

You're right. Absolutely right. Let's everyone speed everywhere, then. Prove me wrong and drive everywhere as fast as your car can go.

Pulled over, or crashed and killed in a fireball? If he survived perfectly well then he's already jumped all over your argument that the 'Bends of DEATH' can't be driven faster than the posted limit without incident.

Again, you're so right. Let's everyone do it at 130, then. Because the conditions will allow that, right? No-one can ever make a mistake, right? Every vehicle can handle it, right? Everyone is capable of driving that well, right?

Pulled over just means he was spotted breaking the arbitrary limit.

It also means he was ignoring the very obvious cops... or worse, did not see them because he was going too fast and his attention was elsewhere.

Then the camera brigade came in and lowered the limits artificially. What happened?

People stopped driving at the same speeds. Those exceeding the limits give themselves less time in which to react to the slower traffic around them, they crash, they die, they blow up in huge fireballs and whatever else. They're NOT driving to conditions, same as anyone trying to do 190 in 20mph traffic.

Drivers use road sense to vary their speed, and this works both sides of the said limit.

Do they?????!!!!!
Really??
So why are so many still crashing, then?
If they're so skilled and so capable of varying their speed... why aren't they? Why are they trying to go 20, 30, 50 mph faster than the volume of traffic will allow?

Even if we removed town limits, with careless and dangerous driving laws there's still the same potential for enforcement and sensible driving as there is today.

Potential.
But it won't work that way any more.
You now live at a time where people can do something really stupid and successfully sue the manufacturer for NOT having a label on their product telling people not to do it in the first place.
You have speed limits to define exactly where the line is. Otherwise everyone will argue that 130mph is "subjective" on how dangerous it is, how no-one told them it was too fast and then every case will be thrown out of court.

Think about that for a moment. Are you suggesting that black ice, a bend that tightened (why are people not using the limit point analysis, taught by every ADI in the UK, which makes it impossible for bends to catch you out like that?), or a car coming the other way are excuses for crashing if you did listen to the advisory sign, but not an excuse if you didn't?!

Again, if you don't tell them, they will use that lack of information as an excuse.
And no, if you read what I said, you'd understand that is the defence that can be, and will be, and is being used. I never said I concurred.

Also I'm not sure what your 'a car was coming the other way' statement is about. If you don't have visibility around a bend you'd be on your own side of the road, no?

There are points where the road is two cars perfectly wide but no wider, and drivers on the inside of the bend end up running wide (for numerous different reasons) and can run across half your lane or even further. Doesn't matter how much you're in your lane, you still get them cutting over. Even if you see them coming, the assumption is always that they're going to stay in their lane.
Same too for other points, where two different drivers frequently have differing opinions on "what the conditions will bear". The result is a crash.

I'll certainly be in my own lane and able to stop in a distance I can see to be clear on my own side of the road...

The problem is the other driver and their inability, or their misjudgement. I'm sure they will argue their side, but after they've smashed into you and left you a cabbage, will you still feel happy in the knowledge that you got hurt despite you doing everything right?

I'm honestly not sure where you're going with this but from your post you don't come across as the world's most confident driver.

I'm probably a bit overconfident, more so on the bike as I've been riding longer. However, I have very little confidence in other people.
There are times I've done well more than double the speed limit down a motorway, for example, yet almost every time there has been a car behind me, weaving about and trying to get past so he can go even faster. You sound like one of those....

In fact, you sound like you have a real authoritarian streak when it comes to driving, even if your opinions aren't borne out by real world data.

Having lost a good number of friends, one an Advanced Driving Instructor, to other people's stupid mistakes and wilful dangerous driving , yes I have a very intolerant attitude to bad driving.

 

[Nasher]

Luckily theres no cameras that can detect people going a bit sideways around roundabouts and out of junctions