OT: Smart Motorways and overly smart cameras?

[dennis]

I think he is confused by the fines table that does say 41-50 in a 40 limit. However nowhere does it say they will fine you for doing 41 in a 40.

[T i m]

I posted this in my first post:

And there are hundreds of instance like this with a quick Google for 'Zero tolerance speeding'.

So only 11% might have been prosecuted (79 being the threshold).

Ok.

Yes, I understand that part of the original reason, along with driver trust / faith in the whole system. The latter doesn't seem to be a consideration case so far ... well not yet anyway. ;-)

The new dual radar camera systems are far more accurate and hence why they feel they can introduce such Draconian thresholds.

Cheers, T i m

[Nightjar]

AIUI, the CPS guidelines, taken from ACPO recommendations, are that, where speeding is the only offence, no action (other than, perhaps a few words of advice from a police officer who stops the speeder) will be taken below 46mph.

[Nightjar]

Sentencing guidelines are not the same as guidelines as to whether the case should go to Court in the first case. In fact, the CPS would not normally recommend a summons for less than 66mph in a 40mph limit. For

46mph to 65mph, they suggest a FPN or speed awareness course. They do not suggest taking action for less than 46mph, although the police do have discretion to do so, if they feel it is appropriate, but that isn't usually done if speeding is the only offence.

[dennis]

But it doesn't say they are going to use zero tolerance. No more than the current fines and laws do.

Where does it say they are doing zero tolerance in an official statement?

[Steve Walker]

On the other hand, I have also seen totally non-profit speed control in France, where exceeding the speed limit simply causes the lights at the junction ahead of you to go red just before you get there. Simple and effective at reducing speed.

SteveW

[Andy Burns]

Yes but sentencing != prosecution

speed enforcement guidelines

Speed Min Speed Min Speed Limit For FPN/SAC For Prosecution ===== ========== ===============

20mph 24mph 35mph 30mph 35mph 50mph 40mph 46mph 66mph 50mph 57mph 76mph 60mph 68mph 86mph 70mph 79mph 96mph

Source: National Police Chiefs? Council (NPCC)

[Steve Walker]

He is technically correct here. Right back to school physics and the SUVAT equations: a = (v - u) / t

a = rate of acceleration (m/s/s) v = final velocity (m/s) u = initial velocity (m/s) t = time (s)

So for normal English "acceleration" is where final velocity is greater than initial and a is positive and "deceleration" is where final velocity is lower than initial and a is negative. Both however are rates of acceleration.

In the case of an accident, for each person involved, it is immaterial whether the acceleration is positive of negative, only the magnitude matters - except I suppose that if the acceleration is positive, they've got to come to a stop again and that could be damaging too :)

SteveW

[Steve Walker]

Which is perfectly reasonable for the sort of people that use a telematics box - young, inexperienced drivers who are otherwise quoted prohibitive premiums. Once people have a decent number of years and miles of driving under their belt, their accident history is surely a much better guide - as no claims does tend to prove that they are driving within the limits of themselves, their vehicle and road conditions, regardless of the measurements that telematics make.

SteveW

[Steve Walker]

It's pretty appalling that the police (especially traffic police) don't know such basic requirements of the rules as the difference between a van and a car-derived van.

SteveW

[Steve Walker]

Oh yes?

We have a nearby road. It was a 40mph, B-road. Reasonably wide, with grass verges each side, then wide, bi-direction cycleways each side, then another verge and then a footpath. A child was killed because he ran out into it, rushing to get home from the park when he and his mates found that their football needed pumping up.

The speed limit was reduced to 30mph and the central road markings were widened into a hatched area.

The day the the lower speed limit was introduced, big yellow signs warning of a changed limit were erected, in the expectation that many people who used the road regularly would not be looking out for the limit as they'd been driving on that road for decades and knew it well.

At the end of that road is a roundabout and beyond that a dual-carriageway. On the same day, that was reduced from 70mph to 40mph with just a change of the speed limit signs (that again regular users would not be looking out for) and no yellow warnings of the change were erected. You can guess where the police were speed-trapping that day!

SteveW

[bert]

If you average 54 in a 50 stretch then if at some point you did less than 54 by simple mathematics at some point you must have done even more than 54. Average speed cameras on smart motorways are there to optimise traffic flow and to remove rubber banding which causes tail-end shunts.

[bert]

In article , T i m writes

That wouldn't put you over the average speed by more than a fraction.

[bert]

Right brained people are not very good at maths.

[bert]

That's because a short period at a lower speed has quite a downward effect on your average speed.

[bert]

Another reason I discovered is that plod doesn't appreciate the asymmetric nature of the tolerance on speedos.

[bert]

In North Wales it does (AIUI)

[bert]

In article , T i m writes

It avoids it at the next 50 as all the idiots rocket up to 70 just because they see a hundred yards of clear road ahead.

[bert]

In article , T i m writes

Because he likes to play the smart arse.

[bert]

In article , T i m writes

Ask your local Police Commissioner what is top of the list of complaints when they do a public consultation.