Zero tolerance on UK motorways

[sludgeguts]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ce-approach-to-speeding-on-the-motorways.html

1mph over & you're done. Whatever happened to safety first?
I very much doubt all these major incidents are caused by people doing 75 - 80mph, most likely that majority are caused by driver stupidity.
However, I wonder if we will see an increase in the number of smashes due to drivers spending more of their time staring at their speedo to make sure they aren't going 1mph over?
This'll be a real PITA for me. My speedo reads 20, 40, 60 etc. Inbetween these numbers is a series of small marks, each representing 2mph. So I have to stare at the dial and decide, is this in the middle or is it closer to 80 or closer to 60?
In my bus, I have 20, 40 etc and then a line representing 30, 50 etc. Trouble is, the 'needle' is so thick that as you see the 50mph mark, gps says I'm doing 53!

 

[BMbler]

#money, money, money...
Its a rich mans world#...

 

[road_rascal]

I don't know how they could possibly enforce that. I have yet to encounter a speedometer that is 100% accurate from 0-100mph. 1 over is just insane.

 

[Deleted member 46308]

I don't know how they could possibly enforce that. I have yet to encounter a speedometer that is 100% accurate from 0-100mph. 1 over is just insane.

++1

 

[BMbler]

Simple, their cameras are calibrated, road users speedometers (payer's) don't matter! If in doubt- drive 10mph slower... If that is at all possible, considering congestion... Also, slowing everything down 10% will mean 10% more time for the journeys (those will not lessen in number), hence traffic jams will increase 50%, considering, current delays are caused 60% by no accidents or roadworks, but shere volume (overloaded roads) caused.
Dumbarse morons!
And greedy money grabbers, paid by the same motorists...

 

[TheRookie]

Well... they openly admitted that the whole exercise is about money and have sweet Fanny Adams to do with road safety.

As to speedos, these are calibrated to always show 3-5 miles above the actual speed.
This is done to accommodate wheel thread wear-out and instrument needle inertia/historic averaging.

 

[2000rpm]

I don't know how they could possibly enforce that. I have yet to encounter a speedometer that is 100% accurate from 0-100mph. 1 over is just insane.

By law, speedometers in the UK (and much of Europe) must never under-state the speed, and can over-state the speed by as much as +10% +6mph.

So if a car is travelling at 70mph the speedo is legally allowed to say anything between 70-83mph. Most speedos over-read, with an average of about +5%, but those are just generalisations.

My previous car over-stated speed by about +10%. My current car over-states by +2%.

The legal argument here is that to get a speeding ticket the speedo would clearly have been showing higher than the limit.

 

[reverend]

You can see there are going to be issues straight away with folks who've changed wheels / tyres and have the wrong ratio which will also affect the speedo - it's definitely a can of worms but you can see it will make the lawyers a fortune!

 

[JooVuu]

To be fair I agree and don't agree with it.

Don't agree:
+1mph is a joke. Sometimes you over take a person going at 68mph and you may go to 72-73mph in order to over take and switch lanes, however, now everyone will be plodding along surely it would cause more problems as overtaking and what not would become far slower? Secondly, it could make driving on motorways actually worse due to the fact that I know where all the speed cameras are on all the stretches near me, as I'm assuming lots of others do, so people may speed outrageously inbetween then hit their breaks.

Agree with it.
The police have been clobbered by cuts to their budgets and yet have to maintain a certain level of policing which now they simply cannot afford. 8 forces I believe are on the edge of going bankrupt, and some forces may have to cut their budget by a further 40% in the spending review. As such they need money to exist. This isn't because they are greedy, this is simply so they can exist.

Dan

 

[BMbler]

85% of fuel costs is taxes, (another dumbarse "idea" road-tax(where extra 1% on fuel duty would be way fairer charge "for environment")) is what should be paying for the road policing. Other forces... better legalise vigilantes, not much good of them (fuzz) lately anyways..

 

[TheRookie]

You can see there are going to be issues straight away with folks who've changed wheels / tyres and have the wrong ratio which will also affect the speedo - it's definitely a can of worms but you can see it will make the lawyers a fortune!

AFAIK, fitting an incorrect (i.e. not the one the car came with) wheels/tyres is classed as a modification and must be agreed with insurance company, otherwise it would invalidate insurance, which will make car illegal straight away.

And from my experience these bastards (insurance companies, that's it) can be extremely picky and seeking for any reason to inflate the price or invalidate insurance altogether. For example, one of the insurers I had to deal with, told me that fitting tyres with lower speed limit on them is unacceptable. FWIW I was talking about swapping tyres marked as V (149mph) to H(130mph) on a Prius (max speed is limited to 110mph). The size was the same, just the speed rating was different and their response was "not allowed".

Oh, and when I had an accident (not my fault) the insurer was insisting that because wheels were painted black and not silver, it wasn't standard fit and therefore the insurance was invalid. What saved me was an email from dealer stating that these wheels were standard fit on a very limited models of the car.

 

[2000rpm]

Several points come to mind regarding the proposed zero tolerance:

1. It is a blatant revenue-raiser - if we refuse to pay more tax to pay for policing, the police must raise money some other way.

2. Equipment used for catching 'speeders' is likely to have a small calibration error, probably 1-2mph. So the police radar will have to 'clock' you at what their equipment indicates as 72-73mph before they can be confident you were speeding and that it wasn't their equipment's calibration drifting off slightly. So if their equipment says you were doing 75mph the ticket will say 73mph.

3. Speed limits are usually clearly marked, and if not clearly marked it's usually possible to make an educated guess as to the limit (street lights = 30mph; side streets in town = 20mph; single-carriageway out of town = 60mph for cars/50mph for most other vehicles; dual-carriageway = 70mph for cars/56-60mph for most other vehicles).

4. Cars have a speedo which over-states the true speed. Therefore car drivers are given a margin of error where the speedo will be noticeably above the limit if they actually get a speeding ticket.

5. Drivers have the freedom to choose the speed at which they drive. Therefore it will mostly be optional whether a driver wishes to risk having to pay this new 'speed tax'.


On a clear road, I generally let my speed sit a few percent above the limit, up to several percent above the limit. That generally ensures I'm not annoying the guy behind and not going fast enough to trigger the speed cameras which are set for about +10% +2mph nor have to brake suddenly when I see one loom up unexpectedly. Also in that speed range I'm unlikely to attract the interest of traffic police/ANPR; I've passed several speed cameras or ANPR vans on motorway bridges or ANPR vans in rural road laybys at a genuine 62-63mph (speedo reading mid-60s) or a genuine 73-74mph (speedo reading mid-70s) and never had a ticket.

However, today I've travelled about 100 miles and spent the whole time practicing getting into the habit of a new speed routine; sitting exactly on the speed limit for each road (based on knowing what speed the speedo needs to read for my actual speed to be what I want).
It's only 1-3mph slower than I've been driving, and on a 100-mile journey, travelling at an average speed of 50mph instead of 52mph will only make five minutes difference (2hrs vs 1:55). And that's assuming a clear straight run without being held up, or the relative constants of junctions, traffic lights and accelerations which will be similar for everyone. So in reality only a couple of minutes will be trimmed of the journey time.

 

[BMbler]

Several

However, today I've travelled about 100 miles and spent the whole time practicing getting into the habit of a new speed routine; sitting exactly on the speed limit for each road (based on knowing what speed the speedo needs to read for my actual speed to be what I want).
It's only 1-3mph slower than I've been driving, and on a 100-mile journey, travelling at an average speed of 50mph instead of 52mph will only make five minutes difference (2hrs vs 1:55).

You must have had few "gestures" your way...

 

[2000rpm]

You must have had few "gestures" your way...

Not that I noticed. Nothing seemed any different to normal. Nobody flashed me. Nobody used their horn. Nobody glared at me as they passed.
Sure, there were the usual BMWs and white van men but they're always going to be up your backside unless you're doing speeds teetering on the point of getting a day in court and a driving ban.

Most people don't bother to check how accurate their speedo is, so even when travelling at the limit for the road, the car behind speedo would still have been showing a speed higher than the limit for the road.

If I stay in the inside lane of the motorway at 70mph, occasionally passing the 56mph lorries before moving back to the inside lane, I don't see I'm doing any harm, and I'm making sure I get into the routine of sticking within speed limits for when these new 'taxes' come into effect.

And on rural roads at 60mph, there are enough tractors, cyclists, horses, hikers or sharp bends to make it difficult to speed anyway. Even lorries can't do more than 56mph whatever the road due to their electronic speed-limiters, so travelling at 60mph means it isn't long before I'm behind a 50-56mph lorry or 20-30mph tractor, or having to slow down for the next 30mph-40mph country village.

And around town, anyone who speeds is in an idiot because of the tipping point between a child probably surviving a car hitting them a 30mph but probably dying if hit by a car at 40mph.

I sometimes have to use the roads in Bedfordshire, so that report in the Telegraph directly affects me. I live in an adjacent county so it won't be long before my local police force catches on to the money-making idea.
Doing my best to ensure I don't get caught for speeding will also keep insurance costs down by avoiding speeding fines - we have three cars, so a single speeding offence for either of us could end up adding many hundreds to our insurance costs over the following few years, in addition to the original speeding fine.

 

[road_rascal]

AFAIK, fitting an incorrect (i.e. not the one the car came with) wheels/tyres is classed as a modification and must be agreed with insurance company, otherwise it would invalidate insurance, which will make car illegal straight away.

I wish that was the law here in the US. I see way too many vehicles with goofy tire and wheel combos. Especially bro-dozers (pickups with ungodly huge tires).

 

[efcm]

In Portugal we have a big campaign long time ago maybe year 2000 in some major roads whit lots of accidents resulting in injuries and fatalities.

The campaign have a big media attention and it was effective on the first 6 months because people was afraid of speed tickets, and some tickets even made the news, people driving at 51km/h on a 50km/h zone.

But after a while the lack of speed cameras by the police, make people lose the fear of a speed ticket.

Now the police have a lot more of speed cameras but the gave you a 5% to 20% discount before the start to make you pay tickets.

The limit speed is a limit not a "mandatory" speed to drive.

 

[BMbler]

Let's be honest, "speed limit" is dumb way to generalise as safety or accident cause.
Way, way bigger factor is actual vehicle, its abilities; driver abilities; road condition, time, visibility, amount of vehicles on the road...

 

[Rajagra]

I have no objection to speed limits being enforced rigidly PROVIDED they are consistent and honest about it (and the limits are properly chosen.)
The situation we have now is a bit of a joke. Basically they post a speed limit, but police (and we assume, speed cameras) only do you if you exceed limit+10%+2.
I don't know where that's from, or how reliable it is, but it is widely seen as what's done.

The bottom line is that a 70mph limit can safely be viewed as a 79mph speed limit.
Now what's better? A 70 limit that is enforced as a 79 limit, or a 79 limit (OK, let's call it 80) that would be treated literally?
I would prefer direct honesty. They need to revamp the system. Maybe explicitly call it the prosecution speed rather than the allowed speed.

The real problem with their proposal is that by lowering the speed at which they prosecute they are lowering the effective speed limit without going through proper channels.
And they are being quite brazen about this being about money. They are "hoping" to raise more money. That means they are "hoping" people will break the speed limit. Shameful.

I stick to the speed limits carefully, using GPS speed from my satnav. At a true 70mph my speedo indicates nearly 80mph.
I don't have cruise control, so my speed goes up and down by a few mph, so it's good to know there is currently some leeway. If that leeway is taken away, I will have to lower my speed by 5mph to compensate.

Consider this. If in a 70mph zone you can get away with 79mph, but at a true 79mph your speedo reads 85mph, then THAT'S the indicated speed that many will drive at. It becomes the socially acceptable behaviour. There is an understanding. An unwritten rule. You can't have that situation, and suddenly change the interpretation on an ad hoc basis.

 

[sludgeguts]

I have no objection to speed limits being enforced rigidly PROVIDED they are consistent and honest about it (and the limits are properly chosen.)
The situation we have now is a bit of a joke. Basically they post a speed limit, but police (and we assume, speed cameras) only do you if you exceed limit+10%+2.
I don't know where that's from, or how reliable it is, but it is widely seen as what's done.

The bottom line is that a 70mph limit can safely be viewed as a 79mph speed limit.
Now what's better? A 70 limit that is enforced as a 79 limit, or a 79 limit (OK, let's call it 80) that would be treated literally?
I would prefer direct honesty. They need to revamp the system. Maybe explicitly call it the prosecution speed rather than the allowed speed.

The real problem with their proposal is that by lowering the speed at which they prosecute they are lowering the effective speed limit without going through proper channels.
And they are being quite brazen about this being about money. They are "hoping" to raise more money. That means they are "hoping" people will break the speed limit. Shameful.

I stick to the speed limits carefully, using GPS speed from my satnav. At a true 70mph my speedo indicates nearly 80mph.
I don't have cruise control, so my speed goes up and down by a few mph, so it's good to know there is currently some leeway. If that leeway is taken away, I will have to lower my speed by 5mph to compensate.

Consider this. If in a 70mph zone you can get away with 79mph, but at a true 79mph your speedo reads 85mph, then THAT'S the indicated speed that many will drive at. It becomes the socially acceptable behaviour. There is an understanding. An unwritten rule. You can't have that situation, and suddenly change the interpretation on an ad hoc basis.

I don't think it's the speed limit that they are applying the 10%+-2mph, I think that's how far out the calibration of some speedos can be & people have shifted this to the camera. A speedo is designed to read somewhere up to and including the genuine speed, so the 10% will be your dial showing anything from 61mph up to 70.
Whilst I'm not a great fan of gps speed, the bus I normally drive has a physical limiter set to 62mph & the satnav speed agrees with this (although it can 'wobble' anywhere between 60 and 62.
I noted on a spare I was driving yesterday that the speedo read 65 when satnav said 62! (on the limiter) When I checked my tacho at the end of the shift, that also showed I had maxed out at 62mph.
The other week, I had to pick up a new minibus for some distance contracts for small groups. Cruise control set to 70, speedo reads 70, satnav said 64.
On another minibus, satnav reads 70, speedo reads 80.
Now, knowing that speedos can sometimes be 'out' do I increase my speed until the satnav reads 70?
On the other hand, do I leave things alone, knowing that gps speeds can sometimes go a little awry?

I really do feel that plod should concentrate on the idiot drivers who swing across lanes or brake check because they feel sleighted rather than someone who inadvertently does a few mph over the limit. On motorways, I always feel it's the idiot drivers that cause the problems.

 

[Rajagra]

Yes, GPS speed can be wildly inaccurate, but averaged out over time it is good and you can use this to 'calibrate' your car speedo. And once you've done that you can use the speedo to check how the GPS is doing!
And you also develop an ear for the engine sound at key speeds.
But you need to know where you stand. The authorities can't shift the goalposts willy nilly.