Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Speeding!

2456789

Comments

  • seth plum said:

    Talal said:

    seth plum said:

    Since they brought in 20 in Lewisham I am forever having frustrated drivers tailgating and hooting.
    Why don't they get up earlier?

    Said this before on a different thread but it's ridiculous to have a blanket limit like Lewisham does. Many of the roads do not warrant 20 and it's inevitable that you'll end up with people tailgating and looking to overtake (not saying that's right, just inevitable).
    If they want me to move over there is no room. They want me to drive faster but I would rather come to a complete halt and they can figure a way past. What do the tailgaters want?
    They want their own road with no plod so they can drive however they want.
  • No I don't believe so. If 20 signs and road markings are clear enough upon entry to a road and then repeated further along I don't see uncertainty. Anyhow if the council really wanted to make it crystal clear, instead of leaving the 30 roads 'blank' they could slap a load of big 30 markings on the road.
  • addix said:

    Always thought leeway was 10% of whatever the limit, although I could be way off the mark.

    I think it's 10% +2mph so 20mph zone is 24mph, 30mph zone is 35mph etc
    No matter what it is, just drive to the limit wherever you see this sign... And in built up areas.
  • Father in law got done doing 32 in a 30. I've heard they will not give any leeway whatsoever on a 30 as speedos are calibrated to 30. Could be another myth though
  • iainment said:

    As Theresa May might say 20 is 20.
    I think speeding in urban areas at relatively low speeds is much worse than speeding on a motorway or dual carriage way. Effectively you're saying f*** off to anyone crossing the road. There's no excuse.

    Cheers thanks, iainment. It was 11.30pm and no one was on the road.
  • "Ok Guv, it's a fair cop", seems to be the consensus and I should be hanged at dawn;)
  • "Ok Guv, it's a fair cop", seems to be the consensus and I should be hanged at dawn;)

    Agree, bang to rights. Thankfully death penalty has abolished
  • edited July 2017
    bobmunro said:

    iainment said:

    As Theresa May might say 20 is 20.
    I think speeding in urban areas at relatively low speeds is much worse than speeding on a motorway or dual carriage way. Effectively you're saying f*** off to anyone crossing the road. There's no excuse.

    Totally agree - I'll speed on motorways assuming the conditions are good, but never in a built up area. If it's 20 it's 20, if it's 30 it's 30 and so on. Also remember the speed limit is the maximum speed which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. In a built up area with a limit at 30, narrow streets with car's parked and pavements with people on them, 20 might be the appropriate speed, maybe less than that.

    It is also most definitely a fallacy that it's 10% plus 2 - and that's from a copper.
    10% + 2mph is the correct answer; it is most definitely not a fallacy. It features in the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) speed enforcement guidelines. (As always, some police officers are less than reliable on their knowledge of what they enforce) But they are only guidelines and individual police officers have discretion depending upon other circumstances. Which might be heavy traffic, poor weather conditions, near schools, built-up areas, etc, etc.

    What should follow the guidelines are the scameras, fixed, average and van-based ones operated by civilians from the Scamera Partnerships. Although these might have tighter tolerances if near schools and in 20 mph zones, which by definition are in built-up areas, for example. So, the lower the speed limit the more care is needed.

    Now, onto speedos. The law on these things is that the speedometer must never show an indicated speed less than the actual speed in addition, the indicated speed must not exceed 110% of the actual speed, plus 6.25 mph.

    For example, if the vehicle is actually travelling at 50 mph, the speedometer must not show more than 61.25 mph or less than 50 mph.

    All the bold bits are my emphasis. The lower end accuracy requirement means that all speedos tend to over-read to give then a bit of leeway. This is essential because speedos just work on drive shafts and can be impacted by all sorts of factors, not the least of which is tyre pressure, tyre wall dimensions, whether the tyre is worn or not and wheel diameter. So, travelling at an indicated 78mph on a motorway almost certainly means you're really only doing close to the posted speed limit. This allowed variation on speedo accuracy is the reason for the ACPO guidleines I should imagine.

    Some cars have more accurate speedos than others. You can check yours against an app on your phone.* The Nissan Micras' speedos are notoriously inaccurate. It is probable that this is the reason they all seem to be travelling well below any posted speed limit.

    * There was a thread somewhere were I suggested someone check his speedo accuracy because he said he was travelling at posted speed limits but everything overtook him! He came back to say his speedo was indeed crap. If I find it< I'll add the link.

    Edited to add link. forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/68687/speed-limits/p1
  • Sponsored links:


  • iainment said:

    As Theresa May might say 20 is 20.
    I think speeding in urban areas at relatively low speeds is much worse than speeding on a motorway or dual carriage way. Effectively you're saying f*** off to anyone crossing the road. There's no excuse.

    Cheers thanks, iainment. It was 11.30pm and no one was on the road.

    "Ok Guv, it's a fair cop", seems to be the consensus and I should be hanged at dawn;)

    I really don't get the hard done by attitude. You were well over the limit, you've admitted you've done it before. Will you wait until you hit someone before you slow down?
    Quite right.
  • iainment said:

    As Theresa May might say 20 is 20.
    I think speeding in urban areas at relatively low speeds is much worse than speeding on a motorway or dual carriage way. Effectively you're saying f*** off to anyone crossing the road. There's no excuse.

    Cheers thanks, iainment. It was 11.30pm and no one was on the road.

    "Ok Guv, it's a fair cop", seems to be the consensus and I should be hanged at dawn;)

    I really don't get the hard done by attitude. You were well over the limit, you've admitted you've done it before. Will you wait until you hit someone before you slow down?
    I'm not hard done, that's why I acknowledged I'd broken the law. But I was hardly driving in the Indianapolis 500.
  • stonemuse said:

    iainment said:

    As Theresa May might say 20 is 20.
    I think speeding in urban areas at relatively low speeds is much worse than speeding on a motorway or dual carriage way. Effectively you're saying f*** off to anyone crossing the road. There's no excuse.

    Cheers thanks, iainment. It was 11.30pm and no one was on the road.

    "Ok Guv, it's a fair cop", seems to be the consensus and I should be hanged at dawn;)

    I really don't get the hard done by attitude. You were well over the limit, you've admitted you've done it before. Will you wait until you hit someone before you slow down?
    Quite right.
    We are all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqPAuotjkM4

    presumably you've never done anything wrong!
  • I suppose what the issue is, is whether the sanction is appropriate to the offence.
    There is a side issue about speed limits.
  • Further, here's an extract from the ACPO guidelines taken from the CPS site which sets out the limits for various courses of action.

    Speed Enforcement
    The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) issued revised speed enforcement policy guidance in 2013. It suggests that enforcement will normally occur when a driver exceeds the speed limit by a particular margin. The particular margin is normally 10 per cent over the speed limit plus 2 mph. The guidance sets guidelines for when it would be appropriate to issue a fixed penalty notice or for the driver to attend a speed awareness course, and when it becomes appropriate to issue a summons. These are guidelines only and a police officer has discretion to act outside of them providing he acts fairly, consistently and proportionately.

    In summary the guidelines are:

    Speed limit: 20 mph

    ACPO threshold for:

    a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 24 mph
    summoning: 35 mph

    Speed limit: 30 mph

    ACPO threshold for:

    a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 35 mph
    summoning: 50 mph

    Speed limit: 40 mph

    ACPO threshold for:

    a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 46 mph
    summoning: 66 mph

    Speed limit: 50 mph

    ACPO threshold for:

    a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 57 mph
    summoning: 76 mph
    Speed limit: 60 mph


    ACPO threshold for:

    a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 68 mph
    summoning: 86 mph

    Speed limit: 70 mph

    ACPO threshold for:

    a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 79 mph
    summoning: 96 mph

  • edited July 2017
    I think that the issue is that 30/60/70 limits are natioally enforceable laws. Not sure about 40/50. But 20 is a local council thing and there are wisespread web articles saying they are not legally enforceable. Appeal and present an inch thick agenda supporting this and I cannot see a conviction.
  • I think that the issue is that 30/60/70 limits are natioally enforceable laws. Not sure about 40/50. But 20 is a local council thing and there are wisespread web articles saying they are not legally enforceable. Appeal and present an inch thick agenda supporting this and I cannot see a conviction.

    Okay, I was loathe to do this because I didn't want to muddy the waters but here's the whole ACPO Guidelines. There's a big section (section 11) on 20mph speed limits and zones. Everyone can pick the bones out of that! https://cambs.police.uk/roadsafety/docs/201305-uoba-joining-forces-safer-roads.pdf

    If anyone seriously wants to challenge a speeding case, I would suggest going on to the Pepipoo web site and looking at their NIP wizard template. But you have to sign in. pepipoo.com/ or contacting a specialist barrister like Andrew Thompson (AGTlaw).
  • stonemuse said:

    iainment said:

    As Theresa May might say 20 is 20.
    I think speeding in urban areas at relatively low speeds is much worse than speeding on a motorway or dual carriage way. Effectively you're saying f*** off to anyone crossing the road. There's no excuse.

    Cheers thanks, iainment. It was 11.30pm and no one was on the road.

    "Ok Guv, it's a fair cop", seems to be the consensus and I should be hanged at dawn;)

    I really don't get the hard done by attitude. You were well over the limit, you've admitted you've done it before. Will you wait until you hit someone before you slow down?
    Quite right.
    We are all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqPAuotjkM4

    presumably you've never done anything wrong!
    Far from it mate but I am massively against speeding in an urban area. Too many children get hurt
  • cafcfan said:

    Further, here's an extract from the ACPO guidelines taken from the CPS site which sets out the limits for various courses of action.

    Speed Enforcement
    The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) issued revised speed enforcement policy guidance in 2013. It suggests that enforcement will normally occur when a driver exceeds the speed limit by a particular margin. The particular margin is normally 10 per cent over the speed limit plus 2 mph. The guidance sets guidelines for when it would be appropriate to issue a fixed penalty notice or for the driver to attend a speed awareness course, and when it becomes appropriate to issue a summons. These are guidelines only and a police officer has discretion to act outside of them providing he acts fairly, consistently and proportionately.

    In summary the guidelines are:

    Speed limit: 20 mph

    ACPO threshold for:

    a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 24 mph
    summoning: 35 mph

    Speed limit: 30 mph

    ACPO threshold for:

    a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 35 mph
    summoning: 50 mph

    Speed limit: 40 mph

    ACPO threshold for:

    a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 46 mph
    summoning: 66 mph

    Speed limit: 50 mph

    ACPO threshold for:

    a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 57 mph
    summoning: 76 mph
    Speed limit: 60 mph


    ACPO threshold for:

    a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 68 mph
    summoning: 86 mph

    Speed limit: 70 mph

    ACPO threshold for:

    a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 79 mph
    summoning: 96 mph

    Thanks for that.
  • edited July 2017
    Lets get things straight.

    I accept I broke the law and therefore I get what's coming to me.

    I don't feel hard done by but naturally, like I imagine most people, I'm pissed off with myself for being stupid.

    And, as a lot of people do on here, I posted the discussion to gather people's opinions and experiences. And to see if anyone else had had, a similar experience and what action they may have taken.

    I'm now turning myself in, it may be awhile before I post again.

    I'll let you known what court I'm being sent down in, so you can position yourselves in the public gallery to Boo and Hiss.

    "The rope is too good for him" I hear you say;(

    Judge dons the Black Cap!
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited July 2017
    stonemuse said:

    stonemuse said:

    iainment said:

    As Theresa May might say 20 is 20.
    I think speeding in urban areas at relatively low speeds is much worse than speeding on a motorway or dual carriage way. Effectively you're saying f*** off to anyone crossing the road. There's no excuse.

    Cheers thanks, iainment. It was 11.30pm and no one was on the road.

    "Ok Guv, it's a fair cop", seems to be the consensus and I should be hanged at dawn;)

    I really don't get the hard done by attitude. You were well over the limit, you've admitted you've done it before. Will you wait until you hit someone before you slow down?
    Quite right.
    We are all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqPAuotjkM4

    presumably you've never done anything wrong!
    Far from it mate but I am massively against speeding in an urban area. Too many children get hurt
    On the surface though, it appears strange that as more and more urban areas have introduced lower speed limits, the number of pedestrians (both child and adult) who have been killed or seriously injured has actually increased compared with historical lows - by 5% for children but 2% for adults. So something is not working. (Clearly the vast majority of pedestrian casualties are in urban areas with low speed limits - not many peds on motorways or byways.)

    The reasons for the increase are open to interpretation with factors like variable weather conditions having an impact.

    There is also a school of thought that pedestrians being permanently focused on their mobile phone screens rather than looking at the traffic is a consideration.

    Whatever, it is also clear that speeding, while a factor in pedestrian KSIs, is not the major factor. Or anywhere near it.

    Here are the actual causes (for all types of road accidents)

    Failed to look properly 35%
    Failed to judge other persons's path or speed 18.9%
    Careless, reckless or in a hurry 16.2%
    Loss of control 14.7%
    Poor turn or manoeuvre 14.1%
    Travelling too fast for the conditions 10.2%
    Slippery road due to weather 10.1%
    Pedestrian failed to look properly 7.2%
    Sudden braking 7.2%
    Following too close 6.7%

    By the way, the "travelling too fast" category includes drivers travelling within the speed limit but still deemed to be travelling too quickly for the conditions.

    As these stats cover all accidents it is quite disturbing that "pedestrian failed to look properly" accounts for 7.2% (a figure which has been increasing markedly in recent years).

    So, it's far from black and white but further curbing of speeding motorists is unlikely to have the desired impact. Parents like their kids having mobile phones for "safety" but perhaps that comfort blanket might be misplaced? No doubt more stats will be out soon. But it seems unlikely that more motorists being done for speeding is going to help.

    Edited to add: the eagle-eyed among you will note that the above list adds up to a lot more than 100%. This is because some accidents are deemed to have multiple causes.
  • What's also interesting and I don't know if anyone else has noticed this?

    Is the amount of people who cross over a road, without even looking and with children, so your point is maybe a fair one?
  • cafcfan said:

    stonemuse said:

    stonemuse said:

    iainment said:

    As Theresa May might say 20 is 20.
    I think speeding in urban areas at relatively low speeds is much worse than speeding on a motorway or dual carriage way. Effectively you're saying f*** off to anyone crossing the road. There's no excuse.

    Cheers thanks, iainment. It was 11.30pm and no one was on the road.

    "Ok Guv, it's a fair cop", seems to be the consensus and I should be hanged at dawn;)

    I really don't get the hard done by attitude. You were well over the limit, you've admitted you've done it before. Will you wait until you hit someone before you slow down?
    Quite right.
    We are all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqPAuotjkM4

    presumably you've never done anything wrong!
    Far from it mate but I am massively against speeding in an urban area. Too many children get hurt
    On the surface though, it appears strange that as more and more urban areas have introduced lower speed limits, the number of pedestrians (both child and adult) who have been killed or seriously injured has actually increased compared with historical lows - by 5% for children but 2% for adults. So something is not working. (Clearly the vast majority of pedestrian casualties are in urban areas with low speed limits - not many peds on motorways or byways.)

    The reasons for the increase are open to interpretation with factors like variable weather conditions having an impact.

    There is also a school of thought that pedestrians being permanently focused on their mobile phone screens rather than looking at the traffic is a consideration.

    Whatever, it is also clear that speeding, while a factor in pedestrian KSIs, is not the major factor. Or anywhere near it.

    Here are the actual causes (for all types of road accidents)

    Failed to look properly 35%
    Failed to judge other persons's path or speed 18.9%
    Careless, reckless or in a hurry 16.2%
    Loss of control 14.7%
    Poor turn or manoeuvre 14.1%
    Travelling too fast for the conditions 10.2%
    Slippery road due to weather 10.1%
    Pedestrian failed to look properly 7.2%
    Sudden braking 7.2%
    Following too close 6.7%

    By the way, the "travelling too fast" category includes drivers travelling within the speed limit but still deemed to be travelling too quickly for the conditions.

    As these stats cover all accidents it is quite disturbing that "pedestrian failed to look properly" accounts for 7.2% (a figure which has been increasing markedly in recent years).

    So, it's far from black and white but further curbing of speeding motorists is unlikely to have the desired impact. Parents like their kids having mobile phones for "safety" but perhaps that comfort blanket might be misplaced? No doubt more stats will be out soon. But it seems unlikely that more motorists being done for speeding is going to help.

    Edited to add: the eagle-eyed among you will note that the above list adds up to a lot more than 100%. This is because some accidents are deemed to have multiple causes.
    Interesting figures.

    Just a couple of points;

    'pedestrian failed to look properly' would be exacerbated if a driver was speeding.

    'unlikely that more motorists being done for speeding will help' - fines are a deterrent and do make people think twice.
  • I guess what's partly annoying about this, is a lack of consistency by the Police.

    A women driver in front of me at a set of traffic lights, was on her mobile. Instead of making her pullover and issuing a fine or similar, she clearly only got a warning and was let off.
  • I guess what's partly annoying about this, is a lack of consistency by the Police.

    A women driver in front of me at a set of traffic lights, was on her mobile. Instead of making her pullover and issuing a fine or similar, she clearly only got a warning and was let off.

    Hmm... was she fit?
  • 27 in a 20 is waaaaaay too fast, sorry

    That's 35% over the limit
    Equivalent of doing 95 in a 70.... but.... in an area that has been designated as much more of a risk to pedestrians etc.

    Speed awareness course sounds like a good idea if you live in an area that offers it as an option.
  • I guess what's partly annoying about this, is a lack of consistency by the Police.

    A women driver in front of me at a set of traffic lights, was on her mobile. Instead of making her pullover and issuing a fine or similar, she clearly only got a warning and was let off.

    Totally agree mate that is far worse than doing27 mph .And as you say it was 11.30 at night in an empty street.
    The lack of consistency from the police is frustrating
  • Many years ago I got done for being very marginally over the limit - I can't remember the exact numbers. So I know that the leeway being discussed above is guidelines only. That was Warwickshire police by the way - bunch of tossers (IMHO).
  • My last post fails to hit the nail on the head by distracting from the issue when comparing to a 70 zone.

    Nobody survives at either 70 or 95

    MANY more people will survive an impact at 20mph compared to 27mph
  • My last post fails to hit the nail on the head by distracting from the issue when comparing to a 70 zone.

    Nobody survives at either 70 or 95

    MANY more people will survive an impact at 20mph compared to 27mph

    And everyone would survive if speed limits were 1mph rather than 20mph. But none of that excuses pedestrians from having some responsibility for their own survival and from acting sensibly. But it seems it's only ever the driver that gets blamed.....
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!