|
Google finds 'ACPO speed enforcement guidelines 2011-2015' which has a full table indicating 'fixed penalty when education is not appropriate' starts at 10% +2 mph.
(Device tolerances are shown as 2mph anyway)
|
|
"can use their discretion"
Or when they need to reach targets, or top up their budget ;-)
|
"can use their discretion"
Or when they need to reach targets, or top up their budget ;-)
Hey folks : stop the police hitting their targets (and maybe get officers into trouble for failing to do so. Obey the law !
Police officers do NOT have targets. They do NOT get disciplined for failing to meet 'quotas' of tickets issued, etc.
However, as a friend of mine said (who was a traffic officer for a number of years, before moving into firearms) : while they may not have targets, getting lots of convictions may well get you noticed and promoted sooner.
|
|
Police targets should be zero crime - not x,000 convictions
|
Police targets should be zero crime - not x,000 convictions
Anyone that says police do have targets, quotas, or any such thing : please, please provide a single piece of evidence to support that supposition.
Now, I'm predicting a severe lack of such evidence. But the tinfoil-hatted will undoubtedly claim it's because 'they' keep it all secret, in the conspiracy with the illuminati and the freemasons.
|
|
Tha's a bit like saying "please, please provide evidence that God doesn't exist".
Perhaps you could supply the evidence that targets, quotas etc DO exist....
|
Tha's a bit like saying "please, please provide evidence that God doesn't exist".
Perhaps you could supply the evidence that targets, quotas etc DO exist....
You've completely missed the point about theories, and proof. I'm assuming you don't come from a scientific background.
You propose a theory, and then find proof for it. So the theory of the police having targets and quotas ... let's see some proof.
(off topic, but you started it) The theory that god exists. Proof awaited. Scientifically testable proof. Not some 'gut feeling', but actual proof.
I've said that targets, quotas do NOT exist. That is based off discussions with a friend of mine who used to be a traffic officer, and is now a (senior) firearms officer.
I'm yet to see or hear of a single bit of evidence to show that targets or quotas DO exist.
Same for 'god'.
Belief is not proof.
|
|
RobJP
Beg Pardon.
Using wrong specs at the time of my last post - 'king hate getting old! - I misread what you had written and now find that ,with the benefit of the correct visual correction devices, I agree with you.. my mistake.
There is no conspiracy, there is no God, there are no targets or quotas.
Standing by to receive...
|
|
|
|
|
Only just seen this comment.
The Lancashire Constabulary said the Burnley traffic wardens weren't on targets but my friend was one of them and told me the one with the most tickets won a Mini. So interpret that how you like.
|
|
Apples and Oranges.
But, this would be classed as an incentive rather than a target.
Plus I don't believe your friend. Councils are cash strapped and I seriously doubt that they would have £15k to throw around (maybe it was a 51 plate snotter worth a grand, ha!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Police targets should be zero crime - not x,000 convictions
So logically you would be supporting the zero leeway approach?
Edited by twitcherman on 21/04/2016 at 15:01
|
|
|
Police targets should be zero crime - not x,000 convictions
I realise the need for law enforcement and cameras do capture evidence for that purpose. But I do struggle with partially hidden or remote cameras that effectively observe a crime being committed rather than attempting to prevent it being committed. Police shoud do more high profile operations, being seen clearly, to make people aware of their precence. This should prevent crime on the spot, rather than the current system.
In relation to theories, religious or other wise. I was always taught it is impossible to prove a negative. Ergo God cannot be proven not to exist. As for police targets, I do tend to agree with Rob and eschew the conspiracy theory. It would be too easy to leak existance of it, if it did exist.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
|
|
|
But there was that South Bedfordshire top cop bloke in the news recently, proposing that cameras should be placed all along that stretch of the M1 and everybody doing 71mph or more should be fined - in order to bolster the Police's coffers.
Sounds to me, Rob, that if no-one whatsoever ever exceeded any speed limits, the police would become so strapped-for-cash that the country would descend into anarchy.
They may not explicitly have targets, but they WANT, no - NEED - you to speed.
Otherwise everybody's taxes would have to go up.
|
|
There is the principle that people should abide by the law. We can't cherrypick what we think should be obeyed.
I am sure money could be found elsewhere to compensate for loss of revenue, e.g in a small way no cost of enforcing. Also think of saving cost as a result of accidents prevented.
Ready for volley of I can drive at 90mph in complete safety etc.
|
There is the principle that people should abide by the law. We can't cherrypick what we think should be obeyed.
I am sure money could be found elsewhere to compensate for loss of revenue, e.g in a small way no cost of enforcing. Also think of saving cost as a result of accidents prevented.
Ready for volley of I can drive at 90mph in complete safety etc.
I agree, we shouldn't cherrypick.
Where speeds limits are considered to be wrong, they should be challenged using political means - that's democracy!
|
|
|
|
But there was that South Bedfordshire top cop bloke in the news recently, proposing that cameras should be placed all along that stretch of the M1 and everybody doing 71mph or more should be fined - in order to bolster the Police's coffers.
Sounds to me, Rob, that if no-one whatsoever ever exceeded any speed limits, the police would become so strapped-for-cash that the country would descend into anarchy.
They may not explicitly have targets, but they WANT, no - NEED - you to speed.
Otherwise everybody's taxes would have to go up.
The police don't get the fines/penalties, never have - so no possibility that targets might be revenue driven - I too disagree that they actually have/use targets.
Incidentally, Bedfordshire's "threat" was a political manoeuvre aimed at increasing pressure on the Home Office.
|
|
"threat" or not... ...that is actually a section of the M1 that I do exactly what I'm told to do!
|
|
Don't overlook the REAL reason for these over speed allowances. The equipment used by authorities to catch you speeding are subject to errors as any piece of measuring equipment. Plus there is error introduced by the equipment operator (human or automated) and error due to siting geometry errors. So plus 10% + 2mph on the speed camera reading may not actually translate to your ideal speedo in the car. It could be several percent out, so long as the calibration certificates say within 5% they can probably use it.
There is also a widespread myth that a car speedo reads over by x% - x will vary somewhat depending on road/tyre interaction and other factors, going uphill and downhill x will be different! And yes GPS can be fairly accurate, but not always, sometimes it is way out, signals reflected off moving objects can fool the receiver.(speed is usually derived from Doppler shift and not geolocation changes)
|
|
The equipment used to be subject to various error levels.
However, most handheld units are laser these days. Not sure whether the fixed units are radar or laser. Laser units have a very high accuracy level - considerably less than 0.1 mph.
Regarding car speedometers, I believe the only requirement in law is that they must not under-read your speed. They 'are allowed' to be up to 10% optimistic (though I'm not sure if that is written into law or not, if it was then surely it would be part of the MOT?)
The allowance was created when most speeding was detected by an officer using a known distance (street furniture, white squares painted on the road still used for that today) and a stopwatch.
|
|
Speedometer accuracy is defined in UNECE global standards which the UK and EU adopt. The principle being that if the speedo never under-reads you can never be speeding inadvertently!
It's not practical to require MoT stations to have expensive equipment with the necessary accuracy to carry out that sort of test.
|
|
GPS speed readings are averaged - the device records is position, then another, so it has recorded distance, and then divides by the time between readings. This is different to the instant speed recording of a laser or radar gun, or a car speedometer. So GPS saying 70 mph when the speed gun measures 80 mph is quite possible.
Setting a speed limit for a road is fundamentally an engineering problem. While realistically there will always be people who commit the criminal offence of speeding, lowering a speed limit will reduce the average speed of traffic and hence the likely severity of collisions. It's worth remembering that the kinetic energy of a vehicle depends on the square of its velocity: so a car doing, say, 45mph in a 40 limit will have about 1.6 times as much kinetic energy as a car doing 35mph in a 30, and will therefore be much less likely to kill its occupants or anyone it collides with.
Some rural 20 mph limits seem to serve more to warn drivers that there are multiple hazards than to control speed per se, but they probably work well.
|
|
Technically, if the speed limit is 30mph they can do you for doing 30.5mph or any other fraction over the indicated speed limit.
That isnt practical though so Police could give you leeway upto 10% plus 2mph on dual carriageways and motorways. Fix speed cameras tend to result in a ticket for 34mph in a 30 limit so Id say a maximum 4 or 5 mph over may more than likely get you a ticket.
|
|
Speeding is an absolute offence, even 30.1mph! Ridiculous I know. Easy to police it and very hard to sell it to the public. The police realise that they police mainly by consent and being pedantic about 30mph is an obvious example. No driver can possible be in full control of a vehicle if their eyes are fixed on the speedo attempting to keep the vehicle exactly on the speed limit. Doesn't make sense and is positively dangerous. Here they do make a small allowance for this, but elsewhere I don't know. The answer is of course to always observe the speed limit to the best of your ability and you should be in the clear. Cheers Concrete
|
Speeding is an absolute offence, even 30.1mph! Ridiculous I know. Easy to police it and very hard to sell it to the public. The police realise that they police mainly by consent and being pedantic about 30mph is an obvious example. No driver can possible be in full control of a vehicle if their eyes are fixed on the speedo attempting to keep the vehicle exactly on the speed limit. Doesn't make sense and is positively dangerous. Here they do make a small allowance for this, but elsewhere I don't know. The answer is of course to always observe the speed limit to the best of your ability and you should be in the clear. Cheers Concrete
If we're being pedantic, no-one needs to constantly watch their speedos - by law they cannot under-read, must always over-read, so driving with the needle generally under the limit will ensure you're not close enough to break it even if you're not constantly watching it.
No, of course I don't drive like that!
Under UK law, speed limits must be a multiple of 10 mph.
|
|
In which case you'll then get nicked for driving without due care and attention (or some other obscure law) if you have a string of traffic behind you because you're driving at or below an indicated 30mph which as we all know means you're probably going 27 or 28mph!
Sorry being pedantic :)
|
In which case you'll then get nicked for driving without due care and attention (or some other obscure law) if you have a string of traffic behind you because you're driving at or below an indicated 30mph which as we all know means you're probably going 27 or 28mph!
Sorry being pedantic :)
Speed limits are maximums, not targets - no-one has been prosecuted for driving just under the limit - grossly under yes but not just under - although ironically you may fail your driving test for just that.
|
Speeding is an absolute offence, even 30.1mph! Ridiculous I know. Easy to police it and very hard to sell it to the public. The police realise that they police mainly by consent and being pedantic about 30mph is an obvious example. No driver can possible be in full control of a vehicle if their eyes are fixed on the speedo attempting to keep the vehicle exactly on the speed limit. Doesn't make sense and is positively dangerous. Here they do make a small allowance for this, but elsewhere I don't know. The answer is of course to always observe the speed limit to the best of your ability and you should be in the clear. Cheers Concrete
If we're being pedantic, no-one needs to constantly watch their speedos - by law they cannot under-read, must always over-read, so driving with the needle generally under the limit will ensure you're not close enough to break it even if you're not constantly watching it.
No, of course I don't drive like that!
Under UK law, speed limits must be a multiple of 10 mph.
I wasn't being pedantic, I wrote the police can be but generally aren't. In essence few people really know the accuracy of there speedo and some are not prepared to trust to luck and get fixated on glancing at it in a controlled zone to ensure compliance with the law. My point is this behaviour is counter productive to being in full control of the vehicle. If there is no small allowance for leeway, and it is a lottery where this occurs, then the law is complicit in bad driving practice. Concrete
|
|
I've calibrated my car and bike against GPS and found them both to be about 10% optimistic at higher speeds, whereas at 30 to 40 mph, they are only slightly optimistic, possibly 5% , meaning that there's not much leeway on the clock at a 30 mph reading, maybe 1 or 2 mph at most. So best not to assume that your speedo is over-reading at lower speeds.
I'm basically in favour of speed enforcement but particularly on the bike it is very difficult to keep a constant say 30 mph , even keeping in a very low gear, the slightest movement of the twist grip can easily add 50% to speed! Many modern bikes can reach 100mph in first,which is a bit ridiculous these days!
|
|
New fines etc re speeding from Monday 24th april
Use full read
www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/advice/the-truth-about-sp.../
dvd
|
New fines etc re speeding from Monday 24th april
Use full read
www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/advice/the-truth-about-sp.../
dvd
Presumably only applicable for "gross" speeding where a fixed penalty is deemed unsuitable - or where a fixed penalty offer is rejected and the case goes to court.
So, upwards of 50 in a 30 and 96 in a 70.
Edited by RT on 21/04/2017 at 18:21
|
|
Typical journalists, can't even read their own table properly.
They say "most police forces will not prosecute until you’re driving at more than 46mph in a 40mph zone, for example, or 79mph in a 70mph zone" when those are actually the minimum speeds at which you can normally expect to be prosecuted/fined.
|
|
|
|
|
