Caught Speeding - Any Advice

[Paul Reids Sock]

I was merely asking what the rules were and thankfully I have had a good number of informative replies before this ignoramus one.

Although I wasn't looking for a discussion on how dangerous, disrespectful, or idiotic my driving may have been I am going to use my response to your pity-full statement to state that I believe that driving at about 90 MPH on any empty motorway in good weather in a vehicle that is rated to be able to perform at nearly twice that speed IS somewhat safer than someone who chooses to drive at 40MPH in an environment of two way traffic where pedestrians, cyclists, parked cars and children are present.

I acknowledge I broke the law and have been caught. These events may also make me drive slower in the future despite my belief in my words above. I fully accept any punishment and am grateful to those who took the time to respond with the information I requested. Note to self that if I am a more frequent offender, I will no doubt be more familiar with said procedures and won't need to ask my questions on this my favorite forum.

Couldn't agree more with what you had said.

Apart from my car not being able to do double! (for now mine is a 10 year old Corsa) struggles to get above 85 without sounding like it will die so I just set out a bit earlier and do a steady 70 with some music on)

 

[Audax]

It will usually be more accurate retrospectively, less so the instant you need to know your speed.

GPS is more accurate on a flat, straight, piece of road where you are maintaining a constant speed. Once you've got changes of direction, speed, or elevation involved it gets trickier for the GPS as it'll have a delayed reaction and even if your true speed remains the same, the GPS can produce a different result if you have elevation or direction changes.

What a GPS is good for is establishing what the error margin on your speedo is. Find that straight, flat, bit of road and maintain a constant speed (preferably using cruise control if you have it). Once the GPS settles (won't take more than a few seconds once you're maintaining speed), it should read a constant x% less than what your speedo is reading. If x > 10% or the GPS is actually reading higher than your speedo, go and get your speedo calibrated (from memory the legal limit for speedo variance is between 0% and 10%, and most brand new vehicles will be somewhere in the 5% to 10% range - I know my most recent three have been).

While in no way endorsing speeding, once you take account of the 10%+2mph guidance before a penalty will be issued (except in cases where dangerous driving is also a factor) you can generally be showing up to 85mph (for dual carriage) on your speedo and still be safe from getting a penalty. The 10%+2mph gets you to 79, and the under-read error on your speedo (let's assume 7.5%, which at 79mph is so close to 6mph it makes no difference) gets you to 85mph. I wouldn't advise that though. I generally just correct the speedo error, and where safe cruise at 75mph indicated.

Edit: all of the above is why one of my pet peeves on the road is when I'm following some numpty who goes past yellow boxes on the road side doing an indicated 20-25mph. Had one yesterday who was already only doing (per my speedo) an indicated 28mph approaching a camera placement, and braked down to 22-ish ... which means a real-world speed of roughly 20mph in a 30 limit. Why?!?!??!?!?!?!

 

[lawros left foot]

Get the new Bugatti on the other thread and the nuggets wouldn't catch you

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I was merely asking what the rules were and thankfully I have had a good number of informative replies before this ignoramus one.

Although I wasn't looking for a discussion on how dangerous, disrespectful, or idiotic my driving may have been I am going to use my response to your pity-full statement to state that I believe that driving at about 90 MPH on any empty motorway in good weather in a vehicle that is rated to be able to perform at nearly twice that speed IS somewhat safer than someone who chooses to drive at 40MPH in an environment of two way traffic where pedestrians, cyclists, parked cars and children are present.

I acknowledge I broke the law and have been caught. These events may also make me drive slower in the future despite my belief in my words above. I fully accept any punishment and am grateful to those who took the time to respond with the information I requested. Note to self that if I am a more frequent offender, I will no doubt be more familiar with said procedures and won't need to ask my questions on this my favorite forum.

I could only imagine that it could be something to do with the severity of injury as a result of any crash, the higher the speed, the more likely that injury (or death) can occur to the occupants of the car. Crash into a lamppost at 40mph in a built up area will leave much less damage for the emergency services to deal with than a crash into a lamppost at 85mph on a motorway (but it could be retaining control during a blow out or mechanical failure of your vehicle, or collision with an animal that runs out (or even as a result of trying to and managing to avoid it)

It's probably about the drivers (and any passengers) safety too and not just about injury to someone else nearby that may get hit by the vehicle - that's my guess anyway

 

[8ace]

GPS is more accurate on a flat, straight, piece of road where you are maintaining a constant speed. Once you've got changes of direction, speed, or elevation involved it gets trickier for the GPS as it'll have a delayed reaction and even if your true speed remains the same, the GPS can produce a different result if you have elevation or direction changes.

PDOP and to a lesser extent GDOP would affect the result as well.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I could only imagine that it could be something to do with the severity of injury as a result of any crash, the higher the speed, the more likely that injury (or death) can occur to the occupants of the car. Crash into a lamppost at 40mph in a built up area will leave much less damage for the emergency services to deal with than a crash into a lamppost at 85mph on a motorway (but it could be retaining control during a blow out or mechanical failure of your vehicle, or collision with an animal that runs out (or even as a result of trying to and managing to avoid it)

It's probably about the drivers (and any passengers) safety too and not just about injury to someone else nearby that may get hit by the vehicle - that's my guess anyway

The biggest thing that hit me on my Speed Awareness Course (ahem...well inside the 86mph requirement I might add...) was the speed you are still doing when a comparable car doing 70mph has come to a complete standstill if you had both braked at the same time, same reactions, same car but doing different speeds, I can't remember offhand, but it was something like if you were doing 85mph you'd still be doing something like 40mph when the 70mph had stopped (thinking distances increase proportionally with speed, however braking distance increases exponentially). Opened my eyes and actually made the course quite interesting for me.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

I think the 10% is there to allow for a margin of error in a car's speedo

And tyre wear too.

A new tyre may have around 12mm of tread, but could wear down to 2mm and still be legal - that's 2cm off the diameter of the tyre.
Some maths required to calculate the difference but essentially, the worn tyre will be spinning faster than the new one for any given fixed actual MPH

So, your speedo may be spot on, but the reading you get will vary with tyre wear - that's why you get the 10% allowance.

If you think you can get away with 77mph on your speedo on the motorway - you might be doing more .... so still at risk of a ticket

 

[happypig]

Saw this article recently claiming a loophole in not signing the NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) though i'm not sure as to the accuracy of it.
http://governmentauctionsuk.com/auc...era-loophole-exposed/1551?guide_type=motoring

I'd take that with a LARGE pinch of salt. If such a simple loophole existed it would have ben patched ages ago.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

I could only imagine that it could be something to do with the severity of injury as a result of any crash, the higher the speed, the more likely that injury (or death) can occur to the occupants of the car. Crash into a lamppost at 40mph in a built up area will leave much less damage for the emergency services to deal with than a crash into a lamppost at 85mph on a motorway (but it could be retaining control during a blow out or mechanical failure of your vehicle, or collision with an animal that runs out (or even as a result of trying to and managing to avoid it)

It's probably about the drivers (and any passengers) safety too and not just about injury to someone else nearby that may get hit by the vehicle - that's my guess anyway

The biggest thing that hit me on my Speed Awareness Course (ahem...well inside the 86mph requirement I might add...) was the speed you are still doing when a comparable car doing 70mph has come to a complete standstill if you had both braked at the same time, same reactions, same car but doing different speeds, I can't remember offhand, but it was something like if you were doing 85mph you'd still be doing something like 40mph when the 70mph had stopped (thinking distances increase proportionally with speed, however braking distance increases exponentially). Opened my eyes and actually made the course quite interesting for me.

One of the nuggets I took away from my course were the stats to the question; "Where do most road deaths occur"?
a) on the motorway [70 MPH motorway]
b) suburban [50-60 MPH countryside]
c) urban [30-40 MPH built up areas]

I thought that the "speed kills" theory would mean the motorway - WRONG
Bizarrely, motorways are statistically the safest place to drive.
Most deaths happen in suburban driving - hitting a tree at 50MPH is hard to survive, much less at 65-75 MPH

This nugget of factual info has actually changed some of my route planning and driving habits.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

I was merely asking what the rules were and thankfully I have had a good number of informative replies before this ignoramus one.

Although I wasn't looking for a discussion on how dangerous, disrespectful, or idiotic my driving may have been I am going to use my response to your pity-full statement to state that I believe that driving at about 90 MPH on any empty motorway in good weather in a vehicle that is rated to be able to perform at nearly twice that speed IS somewhat safer than someone who chooses to drive at 40MPH in an environment of two way traffic where pedestrians, cyclists, parked cars and children are present.

I acknowledge I broke the law and have been caught. These events may also make me drive slower in the future despite my belief in my words above. I fully accept any punishment and am grateful to those who took the time to respond with the information I requested. Note to self that if I am a more frequent offender, I will no doubt be more familiar with said procedures and won't need to ask my questions on this my favorite forum.

There are a few on here that haven't heard of glass houses...

 

[Sheebo]

Speed awareness course for 34 in a 30 in Cardiff. Gatso camera.

Tbf that's bloody unlucky & very easy to do..

 

[Sheebo]

Jesus some of the comments digging at the OP on here are pathetic. He wasn't grumbling about anything and made a mistake (I'm sure everyone on this thread has broken the speed limit at some point.) Give the guy a break - he's asking for advice which is what NSC is good for.

(Not defending any speeding but at least it was on a motorway late at night & not a built up area - not as bad IMO but yes still not good as he's admitted)

 

[edna krabappel]

Saw this article recently claiming a loophole in not signing the NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) though i'm not sure as to the accuracy of it.
http://governmentauctionsuk.com/auc...era-loophole-exposed/1551?guide_type=motoring

That article is 13 years old, therefore I'd' assume if there was some sort of useable loophole, you'd have known about it by now.

See also:

Yorke and Mawdsley v CC of Cheshire made clear that if it can be properly inferred that an unsigned form was in fact filled out by the defendant it can be admitted into evidence.

DPP v Mohindra stated that if the notice is served by post and contains reasonable facility for supplying the information in writing then the scheme will be lawful even though s. 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 does not provide a method to be used.

DPP v Broomfield provided that the police can issue reasonable instructions on how the form should be completed, which can include that it should be signed.

Francis v DPP went further and explicitly stated that the Chief Constable (on whose behalf s. 172 forms are sent) has the power under s. 172(2) to require them to be signed.

Failure to comply with the requirement under s. 172 is, obviously, an offence. Supplying false information is an offence under s. 5 of the Perjury Act 1911.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Join the Masons and get let off. Its full of rozzers who get in touch with their colleagues in the area you got caught and the offence mysteriously disappears.

 

[thedonkeycentrehalf]

I would agree, Im told 3 points is practically a norm these days and does not really effect your insurance much.

Depends on your insurance company. I was with Privilege "we reward careful drivers" and my premium went up significantly because of 3 points.

 

[The Albion Roar]

Depends on your insurance company. I was with Privilege "we reward careful drivers" and my premium went up significantly because of 3 points.

I notice a lot of van driver / courier jobs state 'no more than 6 points on your licence', rather than, say, 'clean licence'.

 

[Albion my Albion]

I acknowledge I broke the law and have been caught. These events may also make me drive slower in the future despite my belief in my words above. I fully accept any punishment and am grateful to those who took the time to respond with the information I requested. Note to self that if I am a more frequent offender, I will no doubt be more familiar with said procedures and won't need to ask my questions on this my favorite forum.

Probably the desired result of the police in your matter. You never know who could be killed by your sped up driving in any situation no matter the conditions you might deem less dangerous.

 

[Notters]

...

 

[swindonseagull]

Here is the ACPO criteria according to Thames Valley Police:



On this basis, the qualifying range of speed in a 70 mph limit would be 79 to 83, so you would fall outside that.

I got a letter from Thames Valley Police today.....46 in a 40.....so far its only admitting to being driver but it did ask if I would do the course.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

did the course (1st offence) 36 in 30.....kept licence clean,told insurance company and premiums went up £7 a month for a year then came down again but better to declare than not,have about 18 months before i can be totally in the clear as if i get caught again its points..