A sneaky speeding crackdown.

[jim dalton]

To add to the above a quick google also reveals:

In many countries the legislated error in speedometer readings is ultimately governed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulation 39,[7] which covers those aspects of vehicle type approval that relate to speedometers. The main purpose of the UNECE regulations is to facilitate trade in motor vehicles by agreeing uniform type approval standards rather than requiring a vehicle model to undergo different approval processes in each country where it is sold.

European Union member states must also grant type approval to vehicles meeting similar EU standards. The ones covering speedometers [8] [9][10] are similar to the UNECE regulation in that they specify that:
The indicated speed must never be less than the actual speed, i.e. it should not be possible to inadvertently speed because of an incorrect speedometer reading.
The indicated speed must not be more than 110 percent of the true speed plus 4 km/h at specified test speeds. For example, at 80 km/h, the indicated speed must be no more than 92 km/h.

The standards specify both the limits on accuracy and many of the details of how it should be measured during the approvals process, for example that the test measurements should be made (for most vehicles) at 40, 80 and 120 km/h, and at a particular ambient temperature. There are slight differences between the different standards, for example in the minimum accuracy of the equipment measuring the true speed of the vehicle.

The UNECE regulation relaxes the requirements for vehicles mass-produced following type approval. At Conformity of Production Audits the upper limit on indicated speed is increased to 110 percent plus 6 km/h for cars, buses, trucks and similar vehicles, and 110 percent plus 8 km/h for two- or three-wheeled vehicles that have a maximum speed above 50 km/h (or a cylinder capacity, if powered by a heat engine, of more than 50 cm³). European Union Directive 2000/7/EC, which relates to two- and three-wheeled vehicles, provides similar slightly relaxed limits in production.

 

[hextal]

Again, the new cameras are set to zero tolerance and read your speed accurately having been tested by the Home Office, I believe, and no need for further re-calibration. So 70 in a 70 now.

(This information from a Traffic Awareness course).

To put in context, most of the HADECS 3 have been operational in 70 mph zones for over a year.

As I say, i'd treat the info regarding 'zero tollerance' with a pich of salt until it's been confirmed by a reliable source.

 

[Robmac]

...........................Because of this "legal" allowance on tolerance it would be quite impossible for the police to prosecute you (in a court) for being "within" 10% of 70mph as any motor lawyer would be able to rip it to shreds. Because this allowance makes it impossible to drive exactly at 70mph!.........................

If your speedo is reading 70 and you are really doing less, then I would have thought it would reinforce their prosecution. You don't have to drive at exactly 70, just not above it.

Forces can and do prosecute for driving within 10% of the limit, as per the Welsh chappie.

 

[Robmac]

To put in context, most of the HADECS 3 have been operational in 70 mph zones for over a year.

As I say, i'd treat the info regarding 'zero tollerance' with a pich of salt until it's been confirmed by a reliable source.

I agree. As said, I got the information from a Traffic Awareness course, so I don't know how reliable a source they are. Although I would say that it is not in their interests to deter people from speeding!

 

[GRWXJR]

But if I do and get caught I pay up and don't try and claim it is some kind of stealth tax. The rules are simple and well known, break them and you pay the price. The real problem is that for years speed limits have been poorly enforced so many expect to get away with it and are now upset they are being caught. If speedng fines are a tax then it is a voluntary tax, easy to avoid.

I think this way of thinking ignores many of the things that are done in the name of 'Safety', and ignores the things that have been done which lend credence to the 'stealth tax' idea.

There's a road I drive to work with a big sign telling us that there were 53 Accidents in 5-years on this road. Its a main trunk road between 2 main towns and must host 10's of thousands of journeys every day - so the actual accident rate is tiny. I bet if we got the data from the NHS, that more people in the same period were admitted to hospital for catching their foot in their trousers undressing for bed and falling over!

Yet on the back of these ridiculous figures, a main safe road with a 60mph limit forever has had it reduced to 50 and 40mph throughout.

Add in that the human brain makes an ongoing assessment of Risk, and automatically slows down when conditions warrant, and tends to speed up when conditions demonstrate lower risk (less traffic, no people about, good visibility etc etc. The speed limits seem to be being systematically lowered so that they are well below a typical drivers inbuilt 'safe' threshold, so that they are constantly having to check themselves or risk being nabbed by ever-increasing stealthy methods trying to catch people out when conditions and the speeds they are travelling at present no increased risk to anyone.

Fixed cameras are supposed to deter drivers from speeding at dangerous junctions and accident black spots - they are allegedly there to PREVENT the offence in the first place, so that the black spot becomes safer. So WHY has there been a move to change the colour from super-Hi-Visibility Yellow that reflected well at night to a dull yellow that disappears from sight in the dark, and also under Sodium Lights? It is a clear and cynical step to trap drivers going a few mph over, and to the devil with the road safety.

You say 'if speeding fines are a stealth tax they are easy to avoid'.... well it is abundantly clear that there is a concerted effort to make them harder and harder to avoid, and the obvious answer to why this is, is to maintain or increase revenue/earnings for the Camera Partnership & the Tax Man.

Contractors like 'Go-Safe' don't run camera vans for Safety.... the truth is that they run them for PROFIT. They ACT like its all about the Safety and make all the right noises, without actually bothering to mention that every time they successfully lobby for another speed limit reduction, or for another camera site, or for the right to start using infra-red camera vans to start pinching people on dead quiet, empty rural roads at night etc. etc. that this opens up yet another revenue stream for them to profit from.

Yes we need Speed Limits, as not ALL motorists are half-competent drivers, and others will drive too fast at the wrong time/place without a yardstick - however draconian enforcement at all times of ever-lower limits with ever-more sneaky and underhanded methods is FAR removed from having a direct correlation with improved Road Safety.

I'm afraid that your view tacitly implies support for a private profit-making company to effectively persecute the vast majority of sensible, responsible motorists, and is I'm afraid rather naive. Speeding and other Stealth Taxation (of various types of the motorist, and in general) is not some weirdo conspiracy theory for the loonies in the tinfoil hats - there's abundant information and material that supports this being widely seen and condemned by Joe Public as a genuine grievance.

 

[jim dalton]

Speeding law is quite finite. In theory the law allows you to be nicked for being 1mph over the limit. however the guidelines stand and can be contested by competent lawyers because of the reasons given previously

Robmac: I agree with you; it is a speed "limit" not a speed "requirement". If your nicked doing over 70 in a car, then you have likely been reading well over that amount on your car speedo.

I also remember that particularly nasty little welsh wizard and this stance didn't last long because of the above. However I think since 2011 the extra 1-2 mph allowance has been removed in South Wales esp at the lower speed limits.

It should be remembered that the cameras are accurate and also should be placed according to specific requirements. A car speedo is allowed to not be as accurate. Its a fact and is favoured below your actual speed.

Oddly because of what happened to me last year, I irresponsibly was looking 4 NIP's (with 3 pts existing), I have learnt that challenges to camera positions, calibration and reasons for placing have been also successful. an expensive lesson in keeping my licence at 6pts

 

[GRWXJR]

If you were going by your speedometer, you were probably doing about 28ish, if going by the GPS, it would probably be an accurate 33. Some forces allow 10% + 2mph, but apparently, that will also be done away with in the next couple of years.

I don't know if it still applies as its old info.... but the Construction & Use Regulations for speedometers used to demand a degree of accuracy of +/- 10%.

Yet there are plenty of motorists who get prosecuted for a smaller margin than that. So... the instrument fitted your car by Law, may not be required to have the necessary degree of accuracy to prevent you being nicked under the Law!

But of course - its all fair and above board, and you should never, ever speed - its your own fault if you get caught!

(BTW - your displayed speed can vary by as much as 5mph simply due to the difference between a new tyre and a worn one (due of course to circumference changes - so with new boots on your speedo will read less for a given speed than when worn. These days that could possibly be enough difference to get you nicked).

 

[izwozral]

So its you who started calling me Miss Delicious when I first came onto this forum a few short weeks ago !!! you little tinker !!!! But I like you :lol-061:

Guilty as charged but please don't mention my little tinker on an open forum:hammer::hammer::hammer:

 

[GRWXJR]

We have various vans in work. Compared against sat nav most under read to varying degrees, but 2 agree 100% with the sat nav.

So unless you have checked yours, it's risky to assume that you can sail through a 50mph with 55mph on the clock and be ok. It's rare, but not unknown for speedos to under-read by several mph too!

I find sat navs to be very accurate and have been through loads of fixed cameras at the posted limit showing with no nickings btw.

 

[jim dalton]

Indeed, unless your speedo is regularly calibrated then you cannot really trust it to be accurate, hence the allowance. I'm not advocating that you can merrily drive at an indicated above limit speed, just that this latest myth has to be untrue because of the allowance

Trucks btw have to be recalibrated every two years. Ive noticed our Vans were always much more accurate than cars. Tho my wifes Citreon C£ is almost spot on/

If the guideline allows 10% and you are within it. No magistrate in the EU can deny you the latency considering the manufacturing laws. even if they are Welsh. So if within the limit then challenge it and they will go away. If your not, then be a man and accept it

Our MX5 used to under read progressively, so we used a GPS just to be sure. Fun car but glad to have got rid of it TBH

 

[Robmac]

I think that most GPS systems are pretty accurate on the flat. But as somebody said earlier in the thread, gradients come into play, and you possibly get a 'speed over ground' reading which would be different to a road speed.

 

[Winker]

KPH speedo - just put sticky red dots at 30/50/70 or whatever you think you need. It's easy to guess the ones in between.

GPS speed - slow to update to changes, and most don't correct for changes in height up and down hills. This will affect the reading.

Apparently it doesn't.

 

[Winker]

It is/was illegal to use cc in Belgium.
Cc is uneconomical and causes boredom, but I still se it at work though. P.s., you will still end up speeding on ddescens unless you are wary.

 

[Wooie1958]

Are the Camera warnings allowed over there ?

 

[vindiboy]

Reading alll the posts on this subject I come to the conclussion that you are all clever and wise people so why not just adhere to the posted speed limits, you know the big signs with numbers on them that notify you of the maximun speed you are allowed to drive at on a particuler stretch of road? :rulez:

 

[Winker]

I don't know if it still applies as its old info.... but the Construction & Use Regulations for speedometers used to demand a degree of accuracy of +/- 10%.

Yet there are plenty of motorists who get prosecuted for a smaller margin than that. So... the instrument fitted your car by Law, may not be required to have the necessary degree of accuracy to prevent you being nicked under the Law!

But of course - its all fair and above board, and you should never, ever speed - its your own fault if you get caught!

(BTW - your displayed speed can vary by as much as 5mph simply due to the difference between a new tyre and a worn one (due of course to circumference changes - so with new boots on your speedo will read less for a given speed than when worn. These days that could possibly be enough difference to get you nicked).

5 mph!!! I really don't thin so. On a lgv drive axle a new same for same tyre will give you +1mph max at 56 so a relatively small car tyre with a ar shallower tread….. 5MPH!!! NEVER. Scaremongering raising it's head I fear.

 

[Winker]

Reading alll the posts on this subject I come to the conclussion that you are all clever and wise people so why not just adhere to the posted speed limits, you know the big signs with numbers on them that notify you of the maximun speed you are allowed to drive at on a particuler stretch of road? :rulez:

Because they are mostly outdated or in place due to the fear of fuel rationing.
The recent uprising by hgv drivers re the A9 specs cameras and the raising of speed limits when they forced the issue is proof of this.

 

[Robmac]

Yup, some of us are not perfect.

I sometimes used to not do my homework at school too. I'm doomed!

 

[maxi77]

I think this way of thinking ignores many of the things that are done in the name of 'Safety', and ignores the things that have been done which lend credence to the 'stealth tax' idea.

There's a road I drive to work with a big sign telling us that there were 53 Accidents in 5-years on this road. Its a main trunk road between 2 main towns and must host 10's of thousands of journeys every day - so the actual accident rate is tiny. I bet if we got the data from the NHS, that more people in the same period were admitted to hospital for catching their foot in their trousers undressing for bed and falling over!

Yet on the back of these ridiculous figures, a main safe road with a 60mph limit forever has had it reduced to 50 and 40mph throughout.

Add in that the human brain makes an ongoing assessment of Risk, and automatically slows down when conditions warrant, and tends to speed up when conditions demonstrate lower risk (less traffic, no people about, good visibility etc etc. The speed limits seem to be being systematically lowered so that they are well below a typical drivers inbuilt 'safe' threshold, so that they are constantly having to check themselves or risk being nabbed by ever-increasing stealthy methods trying to catch people out when conditions and the speeds they are travelling at present no increased risk to anyone.

Fixed cameras are supposed to deter drivers from speeding at dangerous junctions and accident black spots - they are allegedly there to PREVENT the offence in the first place, so that the black spot becomes safer. So WHY has there been a move to change the colour from super-Hi-Visibility Yellow that reflected well at night to a dull yellow that disappears from sight in the dark, and also under Sodium Lights? It is a clear and cynical step to trap drivers going a few mph over, and to the devil with the road safety.

You say 'if speeding fines are a stealth tax they are easy to avoid'.... well it is abundantly clear that there is a concerted effort to make them harder and harder to avoid, and the obvious answer to why this is, is to maintain or increase revenue/earnings for the Camera Partnership & the Tax Man.

Contractors like 'Go-Safe' don't run camera vans for Safety.... the truth is that they run them for PROFIT. They ACT like its all about the Safety and make all the right noises, without actually bothering to mention that every time they successfully lobby for another speed limit reduction, or for another camera site, or for the right to start using infra-red camera vans to start pinching people on dead quiet, empty rural roads at night etc. etc. that this opens up yet another revenue stream for them to profit from.

Yes we need Speed Limits, as not ALL motorists are half-competent drivers, and others will drive too fast at the wrong time/place without a yardstick - however draconian enforcement at all times of ever-lower limits with ever-more sneaky and underhanded methods is FAR removed from having a direct correlation with improved Road Safety.

I'm afraid that your view tacitly implies support for a private profit-making company to effectively persecute the vast majority of sensible, responsible motorists, and is I'm afraid rather naive. Speeding and other Stealth Taxation (of various types of the motorist, and in general) is not some weirdo conspiracy theory for the loonies in the tinfoil hats - there's abundant information and material that supports this being widely seen and condemned by Joe Public as a genuine grievance.

Speed limits have been around for years they are not some modern device to persecute drivers. Yes some limits may be low to your or my opinion but they are the limits. I choose not to pay the fines by the simple method of trying to keep within the limit. It is not that difficult. One aspect of speed limits that many ' I should be allowed to drive as fast as I want' brigade miss is other road users have a right to expect that vehicles on any stretch of road do abide by the limit so that they can make informed decisions when they see a vehicle.

As for safety we in this country has an enviable record of improving road safety to some of the lowest accident raids at the world. For any family affected by a road death as mine has been this is a good thing though you seem to think other peoples grief is of little consequence. Just to put it in perspective my brother was killed by a driver who was exceeding the speed limit and who had failed to have his vehicle properly serviced. Like many he obviously knew better than the law.

Even minor accidents cause un-needed inconvenience to the innocent party like a friend who was left without transport for several weeks because another driver failed to sea the traffic lights were at red and ran into the back of a line of stationary cars. Much the same as missing a speed limit sign, driving at least without due care and attention.

Basically I have no sympathy for those who choose to put themselves at the risk of getting a speeding ticket, it was their choice.

 

[Robmac]

Speed limits have been around for years they are not some modern device to persecute drivers. Yes some limits may be low to your or my opinion but they are the limits. I choose not to pay the fines by the simple method of trying to keep within the limit. It is not that difficult. One aspect of speed limits that many ' I should be allowed to drive as fast as I want' brigade miss is other road users have a right to expect that vehicles on any stretch of road do abide by the limit so that they can make informed decisions when they see a vehicle.

As for safety we in this country has an enviable record of improving road safety to some of the lowest accident raids at the world. For any family affected by a road death as mine has been this is a good thing though you seem to think other peoples grief is of little consequence. Just to put it in perspective my brother was killed by a driver who was exceeding the speed limit and who had failed to have his vehicle properly serviced. Like many he obviously knew better than the law.

Even minor accidents cause un-needed inconvenience to the innocent party like a friend who was left without transport for several weeks because another driver failed to sea the traffic lights were at red and ran into the back of a line of stationary cars. Much the same as missing a speed limit sign, driving at least without due care and attention.

Basically I have no sympathy for those who choose to put themselves at the risk of getting a speeding ticket, it was their choice.

A very unfair post in my opinion. We are talking about inadvertently creeping over the speed limit, not screeching around like boy racers!

And my family has also been affected by a road death, and believe me, I know about grief.