Speeding motorists

[pwa]

I asked the bloke who led the speed awareness course about car speedos and he said that they tend to overstate the speed a little and satnavs are much more accurate. But satnavs do have a delay of a second or two, which can matter. With my own car, when I have an indicated 30mph my satnav shows 27mph.

I find that the last three cars I've owned(two Fords and a Mazda)when compared with roadside light up speedos on posts( the ones with the smiley face )consistently show my in car speedo to be reading 2mph high.

Sounds about right. You compensate of course. Whatever your target speed, say 29 mph, you know that means, say, 31mph on your car's speedo and you settle for that. It's just like when my mother used to set a clock five minutes fast deliberately. You just adjust to an instrument that you know to be slightly out.

[meic]

"and often a bit more on top of that." as Thirdcrank mentioned earlier. The Police operate a 10% plus 2mph, discretionary buffer before actually prosecuting you.
It isnt too hard to keep within the speedlimit showing on your speedo and the speedo showing the higher figure which you have learned from using a GPS or roadside displays. If you drift a bit higher with gradients etc, there is still a good buffer before prosecution. Added to the fact that it isnt that often that a camera is being pointed at you.

Though I have heard a few credible cases recently of speed traps, especially those giving out courses rather than points NOT giving the 10% plus 2 "allowance". Not something that I am much in favour of, it is "bad" justice when people get prosecuted for such minor transgressions when surrounded by millions committing major transgressions for almost the entirety of their time behind the wheel.

[reohn2]

Sounds about right. You compensate of course. Whatever your target speed, say 29 mph, you know that means, say, 31mph on your car's speedo and you settle for that. It's just like when my mother used to set a clock five minutes fast deliberately. You just adjust to an instrument that you know to be slightly out.

I see it as a way to allow for slight inconsistency in driving,I aim at a 30 read out in a 30 zone,but sometimes it goes up slightly if I'm not careful,say on a slight down slope.

[mjr]

I see it as a way to allow for slight inconsistency in driving,I aim at a 30 read out in a 30 zone,but sometimes it goes up slightly if I'm not careful,say on a slight down slope.

If you expect to slip by 1, based on experience, then aim for 29, because 30 is a limit, not a target. It irritates me that the driving test seems to treat limits as targets, as I've written previously far too often.

[pwa]

"and often a bit more on top of that." as Thirdcrank mentioned earlier. The Police operate a 10% plus 2mph, discretionary buffer before actually prosecuting you.
It isnt too hard to keep within the speedlimit showing on your speedo and the speedo showing the higher figure which you have learned from using a GPS or roadside displays. If you drift a bit higher with gradients etc, there is still a good buffer before prosecution. Added to the fact that it isnt that often that a camera is being pointed at you.

Though I have heard a few credible cases recently of speed traps, especially those giving out courses rather than points NOT giving the 10% plus 2 "allowance". Not something that I am much in favour of, it is "bad" justice when people get prosecuted for such minor transgressions when surrounded by millions committing major transgressions for almost the entirety of their time behind the wheel.

I don't think we can rely on the 10% + 2 mph allowance anymore. Talking to the man who got sent on the course for doing 21 mph in a 20 zone convinced me of that. He was not a speed merchant. He accepted his mistake and didn't grumble about the penalty, but I did feel a letter asking him to be more careful would have been more appropriate in his case.

[Cyril Haearn]

I was driving along a road into town, Saturday morning, lots of traffic, not much chance to go too fast. Pleased to see a police vehicle at the roadside doing speed checks. Unfortunately it was large and conspicuous. Then the driver behind me started flashing his lights repeatedly. I figured something was wrong with my vehicle so I stopped and asked him why he was trying to get my attention. "I am not trying to get your attention you idiot, I am warning drivers going the other way"

I noted his number and drove back to the police vehicle. The officer explained that he could not (would not?) do anything. Seems a good chance was lost to stop these "warners" and put the fear of God into them

If you accept that prevention is better than detection, then being conspicuous serves a purpose.

Dealing with headlight flashing as a warning of enforcement ahead is not straightforward as it is not always an offence: the prosecution must prove that the drivers receiving the warning were speeding. I'm not convinced that these warnings make all that much difference: around here the sites to be used for the detector vans are announced on the local radio traffic news for anybody who bothers to listen and the places where they are regularly used have permanent warning signs.

In this streetview, the grey bit of the verge behind the car in the centre of the shot is purpose-built hardstanding for the enforcement vans. I presume locals now all about it, there are warnings signs along that road but people still get caught.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.76365 ... 312!8i6656

I've probably suggested before that the drivers among us could drive around flashing our headlights, having made sure we haven't passed a speed check.

Best would be to call the radio stations several times a day and report that a safety camera is in use at location soundso where there is no camera. Mind, that could be construed as lying. I submit that here two wrongs do make a right!

I often go for an evening walk near a dual carriageway where many/most go too fast. I take pictures with flash, the pictures are not usable but I imagine drivers see the flash

[reohn2]

I see it as a way to allow for slight inconsistency in driving,I aim at a 30 read out in a 30 zone,but sometimes it goes up slightly if I'm not careful,say on a slight down slope.

If you expect to slip by 1, based on experience, then aim for 29, because 30 is a limit, not a target. It irritates me that the driving test seems to treat limits as targets, as I've written previously far too often.

I very often slip by 2 or 3 mph and I'm careful,so I'm glad there's a 10% leeway.
Go on tell me I'm bad man

[meic]

The imprecision of picking the speed limit in the first place dwarfs the amount of speeding being discussed here. Getting prosecuted for doing 35mph in a 30 limit which could have been given a 40 limit, if a coin landed the other way up, doesnt transform a driver from being "no risk to life and limb" to a reckless lunatic.
21 and 19 mph are effectively the same speed, we have precision in the prosecution purely because a LEGAL line must be drawn. I am quite in favour of a "grey" zone which is illegal, so you aim to keep out of it but dont actually get prosecuted if you drift into it. If you choose to always drive in the grey, then you are much more likely to have drifted into the prosecution zone when passing a camera. This increased risk of prosecution reflects the increased risk that you pose.
Once you are in the prosecution zone, you dont have any excuse left, either you were not paying attention or you chose to use up the slack provided by your over-reading speedo and the discretionary buffer.

[John Holiday]

Thanks for the interesting responses.
Just to provide a little more background information, we work on 10% plus 1mph,before actually recording drivers details.
All the data/information recorded is sent by our coordinator to North Wales Police, who then act of it as they see fit. Basically this appears to be a very mildly worded warning letter.
Presumably those drivers found to have no MoT, insurance etc.will be followed up.

[meic]

Basically this appears to be a very mildly worded warning letter.

I wonder if the drivers who were clocked at 35mph get the same wording as those who are clocked at 50?

My car could have been "spotted" twice on the public roads this year while having no insurance and being under SORN and once without an MOT. When the MOT man drove it to and from the testing centre.

[Cyril Haearn]

The imprecision of picking the speed limit in the first place dwarfs the amount of speeding being discussed here. Getting prosecuted for doing 35mph in a 30 limit which could have been given a 40 limit, if a coin landed the other way up, doesnt transform a driver from being "no risk to life and limb" to a reckless lunatic.
21 and 19 mph are effectively the same speed,...

21=19?

No no no!

Momentum is proportional to the square of the speed:

21x21=441
19x19=361

[buryman]

Momentum equals mass multiplied by velocity. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity.

[meic]

Is 361 safe and 441 catastrophic? (accepting it as an indicator of kinetic energy)
1600 on the other hand seems scarily large alongside either of them.

[MikeF]

All motorists caught speeding should be made to attend a speed awareness course as well as a fine. For some a fine is just an easy option. The hassle of attending a course can be quite a "punishment" in itself, and I know several who have opted for the fine and not the course.

In my wife's experience you get a choice: pay the fine and get points, or pay for and attend a speed awareness course, which IIRC costs slightly more than the fine. If you've taken the speed awareness course option within the last 3 years (I think) you have to take the points and fine. Of course as well as putting your licence at risk if you get too many, points may affect your insurance premium.

I know. That's the problem. There shouldn't be a choice! All should attend the course regardless, even if there's a fine and points as well.

[mjr]

I see it as a way to allow for slight inconsistency in driving,I aim at a 30 read out in a 30 zone,but sometimes it goes up slightly if I'm not careful,say on a slight down slope.

If you expect to slip by 1, based on experience, then aim for 29, because 30 is a limit, not a target. It irritates me that the driving test seems to treat limits as targets, as I've written previously far too often.

I very often slip by 2 or 3 mph and I'm careful,so I'm glad there's a 10% leeway.
Go on tell me I'm bad man

You're a bad man, but I suspect no worse than most motorists.

It's a sick joke - motorists rant about the minority of cyclists committing traffic offences, but it seems like it's criminal motoring that's the new normal: speeding slightly, on the phone sometimes, sat nav obstructing the windscreen, many amber-gambling and at least one or two jumping most reds, barging across give-ways and zebras and, of course, close-passing two-wheelers