Swapping penalty points

[pwa]

Let's just remind anyone who hasn't read every single post for the past couple of days, the "trivial amount" phrase was used meaning 1 or 2 mph in a 30 zone, which is below the speed at which one is normally prosecuted. Still over the limit, but that is what was meant when the phrase "trivial" was used. And what I meant when I said it was that if I am cycling down a wide straight and clear bit of road and road conditions do not make it dangerous, I will regard a passing car doing 32mph as a trivial concern. Okay, some here will disagree with that, but that is the full extent of the disagreement.

As far as I can see nobody here is arguing for the police being more tolerant, nobody is saying that driving at 40 in a 30 is okay, nobody is even saying that doing 30 in a 30 is okay under all circumstances. I am tolerant of cars doing a tiny bit more than 30 when they are leaving my village and have passed the last driveway, but I consider 30 to be too fast in the centre of the village near the zebra crossing. That is how I look at speed. My views change with circumstances.

[Bonefishblues]

Nothing to add to the summary above.

[Cugel]

Let's just remind anyone who hasn't read every single post for the past couple of days, the "trivial amount" phrase was used meaning 1 or 2 mph in a 30 zone, which is below the speed at which one is normally prosecuted. Still over the limit, but that is what was meant when the phrase "trivial" was used. And what I meant when I said it was that if I am cycling down a wide straight and clear bit of road and road conditions do not make it dangerous, I will regard a passing car doing 32mph as a trivial concern. Okay, some here will disagree with that, but that is the full extent of the disagreement.

As far as I can see nobody here is arguing for the police being more tolerant, nobody is saying that driving at 40 in a 30 is okay, nobody is even saying that doing 30 in a 30 is okay under all circumstances. I am tolerant of cars doing a tiny bit more than 30 when they are leaving my village and have passed the last driveway, but I consider 30 to be too fast in the centre of the village near the zebra crossing. That is how I look at speed. My views change with circumstances.

Whilst I grok and grasp your point, my worry is this: the "1 or 2 mph" is soon expanded to more ... and more. People are poor judges of the risks involved with motorised speed. They will begin to speed by more than 1 or 2 mph; and in many places other than "clear bits of road". In fact, they already do, in droves.

It's an unfortunate fact that cars are designed to induce their drivers to go fast, to drive recklessly and to otherwise indulge our human inclination to fully-apply whatever powers we have access to. We are irresponsible when encouraged to be so by the design of the tool we use (a car, in this case).

When I'm dictator, every cat-eye, lamp post and other roadside part will contain a speed camera. It will automatically vaporise anyone doing just 0.2mph over the limit. As this will be greeted by howls of protest, I will cut through the Gordian Knot by banning cars altogether, so no one need get vaporised; or mown down by a fool with in a wheeled blunt instrument.

Cugel

[pwa]

Let's just remind anyone who hasn't read every single post for the past couple of days, the "trivial amount" phrase was used meaning 1 or 2 mph in a 30 zone, which is below the speed at which one is normally prosecuted. Still over the limit, but that is what was meant when the phrase "trivial" was used. And what I meant when I said it was that if I am cycling down a wide straight and clear bit of road and road conditions do not make it dangerous, I will regard a passing car doing 32mph as a trivial concern. Okay, some here will disagree with that, but that is the full extent of the disagreement.

As far as I can see nobody here is arguing for the police being more tolerant, nobody is saying that driving at 40 in a 30 is okay, nobody is even saying that doing 30 in a 30 is okay under all circumstances. I am tolerant of cars doing a tiny bit more than 30 when they are leaving my village and have passed the last driveway, but I consider 30 to be too fast in the centre of the village near the zebra crossing. That is how I look at speed. My views change with circumstances.

Whilst I grok and grasp your point, my worry is this: the "1 or 2 mph" is soon expanded to more ... and more. People are poor judges of the risks involved with motorised speed. They will begin to speed by more than 1 or 2 mph; and in many places other than "clear bits of road". In fact, they already do, in droves.

It's an unfortunate fact that cars are designed to induce their drivers to go fast, to drive recklessly and to otherwise indulge our human inclination to fully-apply whatever powers we have access to. We are irresponsible when encouraged to be so by the design of the tool we use (a car, in this case).

When I'm dictator, every cat-eye, lamp post and other roadside part will contain a speed camera. It will automatically vaporise anyone doing just 0.2mph over the limit. As this will be greeted by howls of protest, I will cut through the Gordian Knot by banning cars altogether, so no one need get vaporised; or mown down by a fool with in a wheeled blunt instrument.

Cugel

Well I hope you at least appreciate that my not be bothered by 2mph over the limit applies only where road conditions make that safe, not along every bit of 30mph road.

I'm pretty sure that the day when cars will be incapable of speeding is just around the corner. The technology is there and probably at an affordable price, so punishment will probably become unnecessary. And dodging points by getting a relative to take them.

[thirdcrank]

But the argument that sticking strictly to the speed limit is unnecessary and even wrong is already being pushed by the people testing driverless cars. (We had a thread - perhaps a couple of years ago, where they were lobbying for driverless cars to be able to keep up with the general traffic.)

[pwa]

But the argument that sticking strictly to the speed limit is unnecessary and even wrong is already being pushed by the people testing driverless cars. (We had a thread - perhaps a couple of years ago, where they were lobbying for driverless cars to be able to keep up with the general traffic.)

I'm thinking more of a situation where cars driven by people have to have a speed limiter that is linked to GPS. All new cars.

[thirdcrank]

Something along those lines was trialled in Leeds quite some time ago. So long ago that I don't remember much about it but IIRC, it involved feedback through the control pedals when driving above the speed limit. Apart from the difficulties of opposition from drivers, one problem I would anticipate is a version of the speed limit being taken as the target speed, rather than the absolute maximum: foot down and get to the cut off ASAP.

[pwa]

Something along those lines was trialled in Leeds quite some time ago. So long ago that I don't remember much about it but IIRC, it involved feedback through the control pedals when driving above the speed limit. Apart from the difficulties of opposition from drivers, one problem I would anticipate is a version of the speed limit being taken as the target speed, rather than the absolute maximum: foot down and get to the cut off ASAP.

I know drivers who, like me actually, worry that through absentmindedness they might acquire points, and I'm sure there would be a lot who would welcome this with open arms. The GPS info has to be good enough though.

[pete75]

The 10% tolerance in the ACPO guideline is nothing to do with speedometer accuracy. The law says that speedometers may over read by up to 10% but must never underead. A perfectly legal speedo can show you're doing 33 when you're actually doing 30 but if it shows 30 mph when you're doing 30.1 mph it's illegal. I don't think anyone ever tests for this though.

[Vorpal]

The 10% tolerance in the ACPO guideline is nothing to do with speedometer accuracy. The law says that speedometers may over read by up to 10% but must never underead. A perfectly legal speedo can show you're doing 33 when you're actually doing 30 but if it shows 30 mph when you're doing 30.1 mph it's illegal. I don't think anyone ever tests for this though.

They have to test it when the car is manufactured, and demonstrate the test for Type Approval, in order to be able to sell the vehicle in any country that accepts EC Type Approval. Also repairers/service garages are supposed to check it under some circumstances, such as replacing tyres with a significantly different size.

Part of the MOT is that the speedometer is in good working order. Modern vehicles test this electronically, so the calibration is unlikely to be far off if it passes an MOT. For other vehicles, it is somewhat dependent upon the service. There is no legal obligation to check the calibration, but that is often how 'good working order' is verified.

[Bonefishblues]

The 10% tolerance in the ACPO guideline is nothing to do with speedometer accuracy. The law says that speedometers may over read by up to 10% but must never underead. A perfectly legal speedo can show you're doing 33 when you're actually doing 30 but if it shows 30 mph when you're doing 30.1 mph it's illegal. I don't think anyone ever tests for this though.

They have to test it when the car is manufactured, and demonstrate the test for Type Approval, in order to be able to sell the vehicle in any country that accepts EC Type Approval. Also repairers/service garages are supposed to check it under some circumstances, such as replacing tyres with a significantly different size.

Part of the MOT is that the speedometer is in good working order. Modern vehicles test this electronically, so the calibration is unlikely to be far off if it passes an MOT. For other vehicles, it is somewhat dependent upon the service. There is no legal obligation to check the calibration, but that is often how 'good working order' is verified.

It can be quite a long way off (overreading) and pass an MOT without issue. Use of a GPS device will tell a driver just how far off at various speeds - mine's +2 mph at 30, rising to +3 at 70, which is consistent with my wife's car too, handily.

ETA
Something nagged, so I checked the Tester Manual:
http://www.ukmot.com/manual/6.7/Speedometer

Unless it's obviously defective, then no issue.

[Vorpal]

It can be quite a long way off (overreading) and pass an MOT without issue. Use of a GPS device will tell a driver just how far off at various speeds - mine's +2 mph at 30, rising to +3 at 70, which is consistent with my wife's car too, handily.

It can be quite a long way off and within legal limits.

[Bonefishblues]

It can be quite a long way off (overreading) and pass an MOT without issue. Use of a GPS device will tell a driver just how far off at various speeds - mine's +2 mph at 30, rising to +3 at 70, which is consistent with my wife's car too, handily.

It can be quite a long way off and within legal limits.

We agree, but see my edit above - it isn't checked unless there's an obvious issue.

[Vorpal]

ETA
Something nagged, so I checked the Tester Manual:
http://www.ukmot.com/manual/6.7/Speedometer

Unless it's obviously defective, then no issue.

It has to be operative.

While that can be done by driving the vehicle, common practice is to use a diagnostic computer. If the vehicle is not driven, and they don't use a computer (an older model, for example), then you are essentially correct that if it isnæt broken, it will likely pass.

What the .gov manual says is a little different from what your link says https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/ ... ection_7.8

[Bonefishblues]

I had an MOT at a Council Bay a couple of weeks ago. No diagnostics (as in, plugged into the OBD port) were used, nor am I aware that it's part of the test?

Are you perhaps referring to the readout from the rolling road, which is calibrated?