Andrew Bangham - 1mph Over the Speed Limit - Prosecution

[Ninja59]

Originally Posted by morsing

Speeding has been trivialised for far too long. I welcome any clamp-down to be honest, now increase the fines ten-fold to go with it and we're talking. 60 pounds for doing something that can kill people is a joke. Fines starting from 500 would make people pay attention.

It doesn't mean that should clamp down on all the other nasty driving from pretty much everyone on the road and we certainly need more road policing.

Remember, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. And if you're unsure of your speedometer, don't go more than 10% less than the limit, then you're safe.

It is actually £100 and 3 points on an FPN. Unless you go to court and then you have the more severe bandings (the worst being all of your weekly income from memory).

Don't you mean 10% over the limit?

[Ninja59]

Originally Posted by MikeGMT

To come at this from a different angle. I think there are two types who break speed limits. In one camp are those who habitually break the limit and always will no matter what enforcement is in place until they get a ban. In the other camp are those who drive to the posted limit and stick to it with the best of intentions, but do they? To drive at whatever speed is displayed on the sign you have to first see the sign and they can be easily missed for a variety of reasons. Makes no matter of course, speeding is speeding, ignorance is no defence in law.

Statute is already there to prosecute even for 1mph over the limit, Acpo guidlines are just that, guidlines. Personally I treat them as a buffer zone.

Who can honestly put their hand up and categorically say they never break the posted limit by even a few mph. Lifes not black and white, and neither is driving. My hand would stay firmly by my side.

I do agree about the speeding, but then in other issues there are a number of categories as well.

Strict liability ACPO no longer exist either (NPCC instead these days).

[canis]

Originally Posted by MikeGMT

Good thread with a lot of differing opinions. Now here's one for you.
Attachment 110384
Anything up to 60 will do. Could lead to a interesting discussion if you were hauled before the 'beak'.

What you got there is a practical joker who's turned the sign around, which is amusing for about half a minute. They do it around my way too, especially for "No entry" signs. Bear in mind, a built up area (even if it's rural but has regular streetlamps) does not need a 30mph sign for the limit to be in effect.

[SwissXC90]

Originally Posted by Ninja59

No doubt many have been aware of Mr Bangham's presentation and comments in the previous days of prosecuting "criminals" for going 1mph over the speed limit.

Beyond being technically impossible, how does everyone feel about it?

Standard practice where I live, everyone thinks it is fine

Our police do this:

Measure your speed (say 106)
Deduct a tolerance value (5)
If the result (1) is over the limit (100) you get a ticket

The beauty of the simple but effective system is that it takes all arguments about "tolerance" of the speed camera out of the equation.
And if you are over the limit, you are over the limit. Period.

And the fine levels here are about double the European norm!
And if you seriously speed, the fine is related to your income... ouch

[Grimble]

Originally Posted by SwissXC90

Standard practice where I live, everyone thinks it is fine

Our police do this:

Measure your speed (say 106)
Deduct a tolerance value (5)
If the result (1) is over the limit (100) you get a ticket

The beauty of the simple but effective system is that it takes all arguments about "tolerance" of the speed camera out of the equation.
And if you are over the limit, you are over the limit. Period.

And the fine levels here are about double the European norm!
And if you seriously speed, the fine is related to your income... ouch

No punishment for any crime should be related to your income. Its just utterly wrong. What I earn has no bearing upon the severity of the crime so why should it affect the punishment? Should someone without a job go to prison for longer? The argument is nonsense. The points system was supposed to be a cure for this, you dont get more points for being better off do you?
For those who say its less of a deterrent to pay a fixed fine, I would retort that the points are the same and its points that get you banned, not a fine.

[NigelDay]

Originally Posted by Grimble

No punishment for any crime should be related to your income. Its just utterly wrong. What I earn has no bearing upon the severity of the crime so why should it affect the punishment? Should someone without a job go to prison for longer? The argument is nonsense. The points system was supposed to be a cure for this, you dont get more points for being better off do you?
For those who say its less of a deterrent to pay a fixed fine, I would retort that the points are the same and its points that get you banned, not a fine.

But your argument falls down when you consider only non-custodial and non-community service punishments. A footballer earning £100k per week will think absolutely nothing of a £1000 fine for speeding. A minimum wage earner will think quite the opposite. The footballer is only interested in how many points he has put on his licence and whether he can escape jail. Even community service is a soft option.

[canis]

Grimble's got a point, actually.

One might as well say; Having lost his license, and being filthy rich, he can hire a chauffeur. Somebody less wealthy doesn't have that option. Therefore, it's no deterrant for the wealthy.

But one could make that argument about anything! Why should he get a can of coke when I can't afford one? But the question of unequal wealth is a different discussion.

[tammac8]

Andy Bang'em is one of the founder members of the "Motorists are cash cows club" as is most of the thief Constables.
'

[john.wigley]

Originally Posted by tammac8

Andy Bang'em is one of the founder members of the "Motorists are cash cows club" as is most of the thief Constables.
'

Agreed the motorist has long been seen as a 'soft' target when it comes to generating revenue, but that does not change the fact that speeding, by any margin and regardless of any 'guidance' that may or may not be applied, is still an offence for which you may be prosecuted.

Those that intentionally speed should obviously pay the price for doing so. My concern however, as I have said before, is with the driver who diligently strives to maintain an indicated 30MPH on his speedometer when driving on a road so restricted, being prosecuted for straying marginally* and briefly above the limit.

* For clarity, let's say within the hypothetical 10% tolerance and for no more than 5 - 10 seconds, which is time enough to react to and correct the oversight.

As 'PhilJ82' said in his post #66 above: "Let’s face it, I’d rather someone drives through my town at 31mph while paying attention to all their surroundings instead of it being a driver with eyes fixated on the speedo keeping it at 30 and not noticing little Johnny stepping into the road to retrieve his stray football.".

I think that most of us would say 'Amen' to that.

Regards, John.

[Grimble]

You are correct John, Amen.