Speeding doesn't pay !!

[kudos1uk]

I have the letter here somewhere, definitely says that I exceeded the limit in a 30mph zone, that's what amazed me, the lack of leniency (speeding kills - just say no kids)

I would give them a call and ask them why they are not following their own guidelines. 3mph is ridiculous.

[wasabi]

I had to do a speed awareness for supposedly doing 35 in a 30 even though I was barely doing 25 thanks to backed up commuter traffic. They simply ticketed everybody using a particular ratrun one morning en-masse. It has nothing to do with justice or safety, just meeting police targets and pandering to NIMBYs.

[santa claus]

Do I accept, pay £85, and move on (slowly) or argue the toss and wait for proof and claim that their speed gun was faulty etc etc?

I suppose you have to ask yourself "was I speeding?"; I suspect you know the answer. If you were, stop wriggling on technicalities and pay up and drive more sensibly in future. If you're not sure if you were speeding, pay up because the Police have the evidence.

Or go to Court and face the music.

[herulach]

I'm sorry but you are wrong its not old it's current.

I suspect the OP must have been in a 20mph zone

ACPO guidelines 2011-2015 are here: http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/...afer-roads.pdf


See the table In 9.6

This is a similar table:

I'll rephrase that then. 10% +2 is an ACPO guideline and not law, presenting it as such is just wrong.

You'll note section 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4 of the document give wide discretion to prosecute as soon as the speed exceeds the device tolerance. Indeed even the table you linked states the following as a precis (fixed penalty != prosecution):

The guidance is that enforcement by prosecution should not be considered when it is lower than the speeds reached in the following table

Section 9.7 also states that devices are calibrated to +- 2mph to 66mph and 3% thereafter, so whilst against not necessarily in line with the guidance issued to police (which isn't binding and is open to wide discretion). Its also unlikely that the speed camera was operated by the police and therefore presumably they don't even need to know the acpo stuff exists.

[kudos1uk]

I'll rephrase that then. 10% +2 is an ACPO guideline and not law, presenting it as such is just wrong.

Sorry but your simply wrong, while it is indeed guidance it's still what the police follow.

That's why it's full of terms like "enforcement by prosecution should not be considered when it is lower than the speeds reached in the table"

Its also unlikely that the speed camera was operated by the police and therefore presumably they don't even need to know the acpo stuff exists.

Jesus what are you on? it's the police who do the enforcement regardless of who take the pictures so yes they do follow the ACPO guidelines.

Transparency

Transparency means helping drivers to understand what is expected of them and why. It also means ensuring clarity about what the public can expect from the police. Raising the public’s understanding of the full implications of their actions (specifically including the human and financial costs) will assist in changing behaviour and ultimately attitudes.

The way in which ACPO tries to achieve transparency is by publishing guidance to chief constables to enable them, in turn, to offer operational advice and guidance to their officers. ACPO's guidance is placed in the public domain.

[peterb]

Sorry but your simply wrong, while it is indeed guidance it's still what the police follow.

That's why it's full of terms like "enforcement by prosecution should not be considered when it is lower than the speeds reached in the table"

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that...

It is guidance for the police to give them discretion in what to report for prosecution - but it is discretionary - the offence is created when the speed limit is created. ACPO guidelines could be used in mitigation, but not as a defence.

Jesus what are you on? it's the police who do the enforcement regardless of who take the pictures so yes they do follow the ACPO guidelines.

Bit I have highlighted was a bit unnecessary? As you are new here, I'll just point out that we don't regard such comments as being necessary or helpful to the discussion... OK?

Transparency means helping drivers to understand what is expected of them and why. It also means ensuring clarity about what the public can expect from the police. Raising the public’s understanding of the full implications of their actions (specifically including the human and financial costs) will assist in changing behaviour and ultimately attitudes.

The way in which ACPO tries to achieve transparency is by publishing guidance to chief constables to enable them, in turn, to offer operational advice and guidance to their officers. ACPO's guidance is placed in the public domain.

Indeed - but it is still discretionary - individual circumstances may lead individual police officers to depart from the guidance. They are not rules. A similar situation applies to the highway code - it is not enshrined in law, but it has been endorsed by Parliament and can be cited in a Court of law in cases such as speeding, careless driving and other motoring offences.

[PasPer2]

I suppose you have to ask yourself "was I speeding?"; I suspect you know the answer. If you were, stop wriggling on technicalities and pay up and drive more sensibly in future. If you're not sure if you were speeding, pay up because the Police have the evidence.

Or go to Court and face the music.

I often get accused of being Miss Daisy's chauffeur, so it surprised me when I received the letter. On reflection, I actually remembered the incident where I sped up to get past someone who pulled out on me, nearly causing me to crash in to them, then practically screeched to a halt to turn down the next junction.

[Saracen]

They can't do you for 33, I understood they had to give you 10% to allow for your speedo not being a calibrated speedo like the police have.

I actually always understood it was 10% +3mph before they could ticket you, could be wrong.

You are wrong. Speed limits are absolute, and you can be prosecuted for exceeding them. At all. So, in law, in a 30 limit, 30.1 is prosecutable.

Then there's ACPO guidance. Note, it is guidance, not rules.

Essentially, this is how it works :-

- above the legal limit, you CAN be prosecuted
- the device used to catch you has a tolerance, generally a max of +/-2mph up to 66mph, and IIRC, +/-3mph over 66mph.
- at legal limit + device tolerance, enforcement action isn't recommended.

So, at 30mph legal limit, you're probably safe up to 32. Device tolerance makes any contested prosecution problematic.

Police guidance is to not prosecute below 10% of speed limit + device tolerance. So, in a 30 limit, it's not recommended to take enforcement action beliw 35mph. From 35mph and up, it can be FPN, offer of speed awareness course, or summons. Over 50, summons is recomended. Between 35 and 42, speed awareness us an option, and between 35 and 50, FPN is an option.

But what we have is a point below which (30 in this case) you haven't done anything wrong, and a point (50+ in a 30 limit) where ALL cases should be dealt with by court summons.

But between that, so from 30 to 50, is a gap in which officers are expected to make a judgement call as to if, and if so, how, to take enforcement action. In other words, the individual officer has discretion, and guidance as to the factors to consider. So, if right oytside a school, harsh action may be called for. If the 30 sign was partly obscured by bushes, he may even let you go at 49 without action .... and if the sign isn't clearly visible, you may have a defence in court.

As the ACPO guidance suggests 35-42, if appropriate a speed awareness coyese is an option, but so is an FPN. But the ACPO guidance is guidance, and not all areas impkement it identically, and the discretion is with the officer on the scene. But legally, ANY excess over the limit, 30, is an offence, and could be prosecuted. The limit is, after all, exactly 30, not 30+10%+device tolerance.


Oh, and for clarity, I'm neither a lawyer nor a policeman.

[scaryjim]

... while it is indeed guidance it's still what the police follow. ...

But it's guidance. It's discretionary. Where I lived as a teenager they'd occasionally do clamp downs on accident hot-spots or busy roads and fine everyone who was technically over, whether it was within guidelines or not. They have the discretion to fine anyone who's over the limit, regardless of how much over the limit. And if you were over the limit, "but they'd usually let me off" isn't much of a defence...

[herulach]

Thanks Guys, just to say, IANAL either, and I'm aware I that although i may sound like a pedantic jobsworth I'm not a policeman either

[kudos1uk]

But it's guidance. It's discretionary. Where I lived as a teenager they'd occasionally do clamp downs on accident hot-spots or busy roads and fine everyone who was technically over, whether it was within guidelines or not. They have the discretion to fine anyone who's over the limit, regardless of how much over the limit. And if you were over the limit, "but they'd usually let me off" isn't much of a defence...

That's what I said. "it is indeed guidance"

It is guidance and they do have discretion, but when done by post with a NIP the guidance should be followed.

But it certainly is not old out of date guidance as herulach tried to make out and that's the point.

[santa claus]

I often get accused of being Miss Daisy's chauffeur, so it surprised me when I received the letter. On reflection, I actually remembered the incident where I sped up to get past someone who pulled out on me, nearly causing me to crash in to them, then practically screeched to a halt to turn down the next junction.

Unfortunately therefore, you know what you need to do next. Sorry.

[Barakka]

As a side note if you do take the Drivers Awareness Course be careful about insurance in particular Admiral, as they have started asking about them which put my policy up this year by around £100 for a course I attended 2 years ago.

[Willzzz]

Taking it to court will probably cost you more than £85. You can get some expenses paid but not everything.

If they aren't threatening you with points then I'd say it's not worth arguing.

As a side note if you do take the Drivers Awareness Course be careful about insurance in particular Admiral, as they have started asking about them which put my policy up this year by around £100 for a course I attended 2 years ago.

And you are still with them?

[Barakka]

And you are still with them?

They were still cheap. Might make a bigger difference to others though

[Jay]

I once got pulled by the police for doing 38 in a 40 (thats not a typo)