Swapping penalty points

[Vorpal]

The police will tell you that driving at speed on the motorway causes less harm than a slight excess through a village. Of course if the former is in a crash the consequences are devastating. The latter will get away with it unless they hit someone.

Motorways are designed for higher speeds. Exceptions have reduced speed limits.

Villages are very often not designed for cars at all.
we have just learned to accomodate them, but not without risk to other road users.

[Cugel]

You mean like swapping conkers or marbles from drinks bottles, I could offer books to swop for other books

At the food store the cashier asks whether one collects points? Not me

I think when I'm naughty and I get some points for speeding I will bribe Bryn to take them, possibly using books as the inducement.

No dice, Charley
When I am PM of Wales I shall have points-swappers imprisoned at Porthmeirion [The Prisoner], not sure whether in solitary or in a large dorm all together, which would be worse?

Porthmeirion! Far too good for 'em!! They must be confined in an old Napoleonic Fort in the damper reaches of the Milford haven estuary, with only a tiny gun slit ten feet up the wall providing a glimmer for them to see their gruel bowl and slops bucket.

Also, each cell will house a large speaker over which the sound of screeching tyres, a wet thump and the subsequent screams of agony will be played on a loop. For the worst offenders, a recording of the sobbing relatives at the gravesides will also be included.

Cugel, filling in the application to be governor.

[Cyril Haearn]

I think when I'm naughty and I get some points for speeding I will bribe Bryn to take them, possibly using books as the inducement.

No dice, Charley
When I am PM of Wales I shall have points-swappers imprisoned at Porthmeirion [The Prisoner], not sure whether in solitary or in a large dorm all together, which would be worse?

Porthmeirion! Far too good for 'em!! They must be confined in an old Napoleonic Fort in the damper reaches of the Milford haven estuary, with only a tiny gun slit ten feet up the wall providing a glimmer for them to see their gruel bowl and slops bucket.

Also, each cell will house a large speaker over which the sound of screeching tyres, a wet thump and the subsequent screams of agony will be played on a loop. For the worst offenders, a recording of the sobbing relatives at the gravesides will also be included.

Cugel, filling in the application to be governor.

I am very merciful, I do believe in rehabilitation, as the sentences for points swapping shall be long the criminals shall be required to learn Welsh so they can contribute to society when they get out

[Cunobelin]

People don't get issued with points & fine for speeding by a trivial amount, surely, given acpo (or whatever the guidelines are) guidelines, so I don't understand how this has been established - can you explain?

1. The "trivial amount" is not my claim, speeding is speeding, you don't steal a "little bit:, we don't expect to be let off if over the drink drive limit by a "trivial amount"

2. Exactly as it says, the statistics show that a driver with a speeding offence is twice as likely to be involved in an accident where an injury occurs than a driver without that offence

3. Drivers with speeding offences are shown to be more likely to tailgate, fail to stop at a junction, overtake poorly

I don't think you're engaging with the question I was asking.

How have the statistics you quote been compiled whereby 'trivial' speeders have a higher propensity to be involved in accidents, tailgate et al?

I don't regard those offences meriting an SP30 as trivial speeding, I view trivial, as do others, as a mile or two per hour over the limit.

If I regard a mg or two over the drink drive limit as trivial, and not warranting censure ... as I am sure would many caught for drink driving... would that also be acceptable

[Bonefishblues]

1. The "trivial amount" is not my claim, speeding is speeding, you don't steal a "little bit:, we don't expect to be let off if over the drink drive limit by a "trivial amount"

2. Exactly as it says, the statistics show that a driver with a speeding offence is twice as likely to be involved in an accident where an injury occurs than a driver without that offence

3. Drivers with speeding offences are shown to be more likely to tailgate, fail to stop at a junction, overtake poorly

I don't think you're engaging with the question I was asking.

How have the statistics you quote been compiled whereby 'trivial' speeders have a higher propensity to be involved in accidents, tailgate et al?

I don't regard those offences meriting an SP30 as trivial speeding, I view trivial, as do others, as a mile or two per hour over the limit.

If I regard a mg or two over the drink drive limit as trivial, and not warranting censure ... as I am sure would many caught for drink driving... would that also be acceptable

No.

...but there again there is zero leeway offered there, over is over, whereas de facto it is in speeding scenarios, albeit an offence is committed.

[Cunobelin]

... Which answers the question completely

Both speeding and drink driving have a stated limit that research shows breaching increases danger to other road users.

Yet as soon as one mentions speeding we get the bleating and demands for allowances for breaching by a "trivial amount"

Neither has research whether breaching that limit by a "trivial amount' is safe. The research shows that above that limit increases danger. Ironically speeding has a lesser argument for leniency that drink driving as alcohol in the bloodstream lacks the accurate measurements that speeding has, and there is greater room for genuine error

If you are playing that game of tolerating speeding by a "trivial amount", then you must also allow the same tolerance for drink driving.....

Either you accept that exceeding the speed limit is wrong, or argue for allowing the same leniency for drink drivers who exceed the limit

[Bonefishblues]

You asserted something you haven't evidenced, despite my asking. I asked you about it, and as is often the case, the question gets sidestepped, unlike me with yours, I note, where I was rather obviously talking about their differing enforcement regimes.

As a reminder you said: "But the statistics are that very one of those drivers caught speeding "by a trivial amount" is twice as likely to be involved in an injury causing accident"

Let's be sensible about this. If there is a driver in the UK who hasn't strayed over a limit by a trivial amount (that is, well below the speeds at which an SP30 is the reward) then I'd love to meet them. I'm no statistician but I don't think that they can all be twice as likely to be involved in an injury causing accident, can they? In reality trivial speeders, which are the majority of UK drivers, aren't caught, a point I made, and re-make.

Perhaps you could help me with my understanding and the associated statistics which evidences your statement?

[Cunobelin]

The facts are that drink driving is drink driving, and speeding is speeding.

Those exceeding by a "trivial amount" are part of the problem. The statistics show that they (along with all those too stupid to drive legally) are greater risk in neither speeding or drink driving is there a distinction of whether they exceed by a trivial amount or not, They exceed the limits and are a proven liability.

The continued attempts to make speeding acceptable or excusable are becoming tedious

[Bonefishblues]

I'm not attempting to do anything of the sort. I am asking you to evidence a statement, please. Sorry about the tedium.

[pwa]

The facts are that drink driving is drink driving, and speeding is speeding.

Those exceeding by a "trivial amount" are part of the problem. The statistics show that they (along with all those too stupid to drive legally) are greater risk in neither speeding or drink driving is there a distinction of whether they exceed by a trivial amount or not, They exceed the limits and are a proven liability.

The continued attempts to make speeding acceptable or excusable are becoming tedious

So you think someone who does 32 in a 30 zone is exactly the same risk as someone who does 75 in a 30 zone? Really? You may not draw a distinction between those two but I do.

[Cyril Haearn]

The facts are that drink driving is drink driving, and speeding is speeding.

Those exceeding by a "trivial amount" are part of the problem. The statistics show that they (along with all those too stupid to drive legally) are greater risk in neither speeding or drink driving is there a distinction of whether they exceed by a trivial amount or not, They exceed the limits and are a proven liability.

The continued attempts to make speeding acceptable or excusable are becoming tedious

Plus One, the law is the law
I think the cops could do like banks do, go a penny beyond your overdraft limit and it costs fifty pounds or more, so one learns to keep comfortably inside the limit

The view that driving at or near the maximum limit is normal is a big problem, even on these cycling fora

[pete75]

... Which answers the question completely

Both speeding and drink driving have a stated limit that research shows breaching increases danger to other road users.

Yet as soon as one mentions speeding we get the bleating and demands for allowances for breaching by a "trivial amount"

Neither has research whether breaching that limit by a "trivial amount' is safe. The research shows that above that limit increases danger. Ironically speeding has a lesser argument for leniency that drink driving as alcohol in the bloodstream lacks the accurate measurements that speeding has, and there is greater room for genuine error

If you are playing that game of tolerating speeding by a "trivial amount", then you must also allow the same tolerance for drink driving.....

Either you accept that exceeding the speed limit is wrong, or argue for allowing the same leniency for drink drivers who exceed the limit

Speeding by a trivial amount is tolerated. Many , perhaps most, forces follow the ACPO guidelines of 10%+2mph ie enforcement will start at 35mph ina 30 limit. Avon and Somerset Police explain it here https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/1 ... guidelines

[Barks]

So the Police just take it upon themselves to effectively increase the limits beyond the legal figure - this surely cannot be appropriate. I had always thought that the 10% ‘rule of thumb’ was to do with the practical (in) accuracy of car speedos not some way of letting blatant law breakers off the hook. It rather looks to me that this is a simple excuse to reduce Police workload. I would have thought that educate should start at the speed limit, if the car speedo was inaccurate then the driver would at least be aware of it then. Once the car is over the limit by 10% then FPs/summons should be issued and the car taken off the road until the speedo is fixed - oh and if the car has a sat nav there is no excuse at all on this count so just issue the FP at 1mph over. Just why is it that we seem to have this obsession with Educating when everyone is meant to have taken a statutory test, it just cannot be that difficult to understand surely?

[Cunobelin]

So the Police just take it upon themselves to effectively increase the limits beyond the legal figure - this surely cannot be appropriate. I had always thought that the 10% ‘rule of thumb’ was to do with the practical (in) accuracy of car speedos not some way of letting blatant law breakers off the hook. It rather looks to me that this is a simple excuse to reduce Police workload. I would have thought that educate should start at the speed limit, if the car speedo was inaccurate then the driver would at least be aware of it then. Once the car is over the limit by 10% then FPs/summons should be issued and the car taken off the road until the speedo is fixed - oh and if the car has a sat nav there is no excuse at all on this count so just issue the FP at 1mph over. Just why is it that we seem to have this obsession with Educating when everyone is meant to have taken a statutory test, it just cannot be that difficult to understand surely?

The situation is slightly more complex.

This not an allowance or increase in the speed limit.

But it does show why the "trivial amount" claims are laughable

It was accepted that there is an accuracy problem with speedometers, so therefore a full prosecution could easily be challenged on these grounds. The reply was to make the 10+2 allowance for prosecution in a court. The 10% was (at the time) the required accuracy for a speedometer.

The FPN is considered appropriate below the 10+2, but above the speed limit.

So there are already concessions to offenders breaking the speed by a "trivial amount", it is just that some want even more leeway to break the law without any penalty

It is even more ironic that most speedometers overhead as manufacturers do not want to be placed n a situation where a driver sues because the speeding was due to an error in the manufacturer.

It is quite possible that if someone is prosecuted that the "trivial amount is in fact a choice to drive at 20% over the speed limit figure on their speedometer.

[Vorpal]

The guidelines are just guidelines. The police can, and sometimes do prosecute for 'trivial' amounts over the speed limits, although this tends to be either because something has happened (i.e. crash or injury), or because it occurred in a high risk area, such as outside a school in the peak period before school start time.