Discussion in 'Serious' started by Xye, 29 Sep 2011.
But why? Isn't the law the law?
Simples, case law. It defines legislation as a lot of the time offence wording isn't specific enough.
You can never guarantee, especially once a car gets some mileage behind it, that that twindly piece of plastic that connects to a gear box, which is directly impacted by many factors, can accurately measure how fast you are moving through the atmosphere. Hence there needs to be some leeway.
Drink driving is the same, the legal limit is 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, yet no Police force will prosecute until 40.
Face it, car speedometers have inaccuracies. Yes, some may read exactly the speed which the car is actually going but some, especially cheaper or older ones, will over-read your speed. As such, you may well think that your speedo is over-reading when it might not be which makes it unfair if prosecuted. It's also not exactly the simplest thing to calibrate without a rolling road.
Remember, not all is black and white; there's a lot of grey area.
You also have to take into account measuring inaccuracies which the police's instruments may introduce.
Very good point.
Besides, who wants to be prosecuted at 1mph over the limit? That would suck.
I had plenty of time to mull over the 80mph question on a recent trip up to the Lake District. A vast majority of slow downs were caused by trucks doing this, and in slower traffic, knobs switching constantly from lane to lane causing people to brake. And on indication - I flash everyone with my headlights that pulls in front of me on a motorway without indicating now. Twats.
I agree than for most journeys, particularly in rush hour, this won't make any difference - you'll be lucky to be doing more than 60 anyway, especially where I live. But for those empty roads it does make sense. At the end of the day, it's an upper speed limit anyway, no one will be forcing you drive at 80mph if you want to save fuel or still feel comfortable at 70ish.
I'd like to see that defence stand up in court. "I'm sorry m'lud, the speedo clearly indicated that I was doing 90mph but I didn't believe it."
"Your worship, my client was stopped whilst driving a car over 7 years old. The same vehicle was recently put in for examination and expert advice has been given clearly stating that the age of the vehicle will clearly affect how accurate the speedometer can be. Other factors such as tyre measurement, wheel balancers, tyre pressures and synchomesh wear in the gear box will directly affect what the speedometer reads. The manufacturer of my clients vehicle has also been known to use the same speedometers in vehicles with different gear box ratios and indeed different engine sizes altogether. I put it to the room that with these factors taken into consideration we cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that my client knew he was travelling merely 4 miles per hour over the given speed limit"
There's a school of thought that law exists primarily to appease the masses, to reassure that 'right' will win out over 'wrong', that 'good' will conquer 'evil', and when I say reassure I mean it in the sense that there's enough people out there who are willing to believe everything will be alright just because someone in authority told them it would be. As such, in practice, what the law says doesn't really matter, it's when breaching the law becomes so objectionable to the majority that the law enforcers are obliged due to popular opinion to enforce the law. In the case of speed limits a significant minority, if not majority, are quite content to exceed the limit.
There are thousands of laws that apply in daily life. A significant proportion of them are being broken all day long. There's too much illegality for enforcement authorities to keep on top of it, not anything like, and therefore the culture within the enforcing authorities can easily become one of only taking enforcement action when you have to - i.e. when public pressure demands action. Speeding has never had that public outcry factor.
I don't know about britain, but in Germany and the Netherlands, there is a certain percentage deducted from the measured speed due to possible measurement inaccuracies.
This amount is actually written in the law here.
for speeding camera's:
up to 100km/h...deduction is 3 km/h
101km/h and above deduction is 3 %
Police-pilot-system (in vehicle video.measurement) deduction is 5%
Policeman comparing his read tachometer speed with yours (no measurement)
with a calibrated tachometer duduction is 15%
with a standart tachometer deduction is 20%
I don't see a need to raise the speed limit personally, I tend to drive 60-70 anyways, and dicks who go at 90+ will just start going at 100+ if the limit is raised.
just for the record on indicated speed:
I've used 3 cars and five satnavs,
every car indicated a higher speed than the satnav
Cars were: V reg mondeo, indicated 10% Faster than sat navs, 53 Zafira Indicated 10% faster than sat nav, and 09 I30 indocating 7% faster than the sat nav
Ie mondeo shows 77, sat nav shows 70
I30 shows 75, satnav shows 70
The satnavs have been pretty consistent, 4 satnavs in the mondeo all said 70 when the Mondeo said 77.
As for accuracy..
A speedo is taken from the drive shaft, not sped at the edge of the wheel, tyre/wheel/preasure can all change making it vary. It then uses magnets to interprite this into voltage (or other signal), which it then sends to another set of magnets at the speedo) loads of margins of error.
Sat navs measure distance over time, the true way to derive speed...
I say raise it, I drive at 80 on the clock as it is anyway, this is also following police officers and going past them and never had an issue.
A raise in the speed limit wouldn't make me go any faster as my fuel economy drops off a cliff above 80. I'm lucky I get 45MPG in a 13 year old 2 litre as it is lol.
It's purely from a technical standpoint that they measure in this way. Their instruments can't guarantee to be able to test your speed perfectly. So they use the 10% to say that this person is definitely speeding. It's the same with any piece of equipment you use to test anything, it will have certain tolerances that it will work between that the manufacturer can guarantee. For example I work in a lab doing chemical tests, all the instruments have their own levels of accuracy.
I prefer the 10% leeway, if there wasn't this then a) they would get false positives and b) I don't speed but it's probably quite easy on some roads to accidentally go a couple miles over the speed limit.
As someone that drives for a living, I agree completely. If we want to ease congestion, make sitting in the middle lane a punishable offence!
Herein lies part of the problem. You are not stuck in the 'slow' lane, it's called the 'inside' lane. And the 'fast' lane is the 'overtaking' lane. If someone wants to do 60, that's up to them.
The point I highlighted, I would probably agree with. The rest I do not. The laws we are expected to follow are laws which are supposed to protect us, and this is especially so in the case of traffic laws. Traffic wardens put tickets on cars because the cars could cause an obstruction or increase the danger of collisions. Our legal limit for alcohol consumption is in place because it saves lives. Road markings are expected to be observed and adhered to, to improve safety. Speed limits are in place to reduce the likelihood of injuries and death. Whether we agree with the current laws or not, they serve a purpose, and are not there simply to make drivers feel put out by them. There may be many drivers who want to ignore the speed restrictions in place, but what about every other road user and pedestrian who uses the roads and paths too? Should their concerns be ignored because someone likes to live out the childish desire to go faster?
I have also always struggled with the fact that drunk drivers are seen as the scum of the earth (which they have earned) but speeding drivers choose to ignore the fact that excess speed has killed as many, most likely more, people than drunk driving has. Why is it that speeding drivers lull themselves into a false sense of security, and are ignorant to the fact that excess speed can and does kill? In all my years, I've never once heard a satisfactory answer to these questions, and I doubt I ever will.
Just ban lorries from the middle lane in rush hours... Every build up I see on a motorway is when a lorry is trying to overtake another!
what I hate is the grandma mergers.. the guys or girls who just don't flow into traffic coming off the offramps during rush hour- they need to get a ticket for that.. maybe a little fleece johnson action
There speaks someone that doesn't drive much! Much as it annoys me too, consider. Forget how impossible this would be to implement, and think of the mile after mile of lorries doing 40mph because someone in a car decides they wont drive fast. And then how would the drivers in the middle/outside lane get into the inside lane to take a slip road off?
This must be a USA reference? Don't understand?
Separate names with a comma.