The ones who did me obviously did as I got an endorsement, a £15 fine and £5 costs. ;-(
The thing is the MM Van wasn't just the car with metal windows, it was a different body shape, even between the traveler and the van.
Had I had two windows behind the drivers seat of at least two square feet and two rear windows of at least 100 sq inches (check), and the vehicle was re-registers as a multi-purpose vehicle (or summat), I wouldn't have been speed restricted? ;-(
The irony of the whole thing was that I saw them behind me over the entire 1.6 miles they had the VASCAR running but I didn't slow down because I didn't realise I was speeding. No defence of course.
Dad wrote to the court for me, pleading guilty but with mitigating circumstances, clean licence, van and paperwork up to scratch, driving below the speed limit for the road, polite to the officers etc ... didn't help. ;-(
The thing I objected to the most was the endorsement, especially for my first 'offence' and with everything held on a central database these days, I see no reason why there needs to be points for the minor offences and especially for the first time. This is especially so now they have fines that are proportional to your weekly wage.
Especially as your weekly wage is no indication of your "disposible" income. A hig mortgage, credit card bills, council tax, etc., an unexpected drop in income and you might easily have nothing spare at the end of each month. It should be based on disposible income only.
There was talk in government circles of raising the motorway speed limit to 80 but they said if they did there would be zero tolerance. Looks like some people don't listen.
I have posted this link to the CPS guidelines in my other reply to you:
formatting link
That, or simply not understanding that, while there have to be sentencing guidelines for any possible offence, that does not give any indication of how likely it is that those offences will be prosecuted.
There have been a few attempts at applying a zero tolerance policy, but they have invariably been found to be unworkable.
The ACPO / CPS guidelines appear to be based upon recommendations in a
1962 Road Research Laboratory report on speed limits that limits should not be seen as a way to get vehicles to travel at or below the set speed, but rather as a way to ensure that very few vehicles grossly exceed it. I found that repeated in a DfT policy document on setting speed limits only a few years ago, although I haven't been able to locate that document again. While 'grossly exceed' was not specifically defined, the examples given in the 1962 report were very close to the ACPO / CPS guidelines for when enforcement should be applied.
I agree but think there is a further legal wrinkle.
If the sentencing guidelines were to state fines only for speeds of (say) 46+ where the limit is 40 then defendants charged with doing (say)
47 would have an incentive to argue they were only doing 45 and challenge the accuracy of the measuring device. And then go on to argue the sentencing guidelines give them a legitimate expectation of not being penalised for doing 45.
As it stands, the prosecution can if need be just accept that it might have been 45 and the bench sentence accordingly - i.e. just the same.
And AIUI they can't run the argument that the published policy gives them an expectation of not being penalised because it is hedged about with so many qualifications: "The particular margin is normally ... are guidelines only ... discretion to act outside of them ".
Like the likes of Bedford Constabulary thinking they could earn more cash by twisting the accepted usage?
That's how I believe the 'spirit' of the law should be interpreted and implemented. And if they were to try to bring in a 'Zero Tolerance' speeding threshold and everyone who was caught doing 1mph over the top decided to take it to court, I wonder how long before 'De Minimis' would have the system back as it was again. ;-)
Understood and thanks again.
As a general reflection on all this ... whilst, as a law-abiding citizen, I generally like all the 'big-brother' stuff and like it more when some miscreant gets caught out because of say a paper (well, electronic) trail he/she have left around the area / country / world. ;-)
There are also times when I yearn for the 'good old says' when it was more likely a Police Officer in a car would pull you over and either read you the riot act or tell you he'll be 'keeping his eye out for you' and send you on your way, once they realised you were a good lad just going a bit faster than you should. This is what happened to me in the previously mentioned MM Van when they were having a binge on vans in the area and I was stopped 6 times in as many weeks (the last being the 63 in the 70 that resulted in a prosecution etc).
One was me going along with the rest of the traffic at a bit over the speed limit but he stopped me because I was the one in the van. Whilst within his means, we both knew I wouldn't have considered it 'fair' that he had singled me out to be fined etc and so I was sent on my way once everything had been checked out (and fair enough). I kept to the speed limit along there after that, much to the frustration of all the others used to going a bit faster ... ;-(
I used to be one of those people who would offer to assist at a RTA (in the days when we could), sweeping up glass or putting out cones or whatever I could do to help. After the 'Exceeding the speed limit for a goods vehicle' thing happened my attitude (slightly) changed towards the Police and I wouldn't generally offer to help. Had I been done when I was actually / knowingly above the limit I would have (happily) taken the hit. That was partly why I was enquiring into the whole 'Zero tolerance thing because I don't see that as being 'fair and reasonable' either.
I continued doing the monthly discos at Hendon and even went out with a WPC (in training) for a few months. ;-)
Often the limit is set with regard to travel in one direction but applies to the stretch of road regardless of direction. So the 40mph limit comming down the hill into my village is if anything too high, but you would need to be racing recklessly to achieve going up the hill leaving the village.
Agreed. We have a stretch that is 40 mph one was and now 50 (I think, was previously derestricted) on the way back. ;-)
This was a stretch of motorway but I guess it's possible that one way / section was 'Fully Smart' (making use of the hard shoulder etc) whilst the other direction could have just had variable speed limits for the same section? (Working on the basis that they probably wouldn't upgrade both sides of a motorway at the same time)?
The fee goes to the company doing the training, but the police get a cut. Under Select Committee questioning, Bedfordshire Police said the money they make from speed awareness courses resulting from the M1 cameras pays for 5 extra officers, which is why they run the cameras all the time with close margins. (The original over-lane cameras in variable speed limits mostly only operated when the speed limit was reduced.)
So in general, they prefer to send you on a speed awareness course, but they can only do this if you weren't very far over the limit, and only if you've never been sent on a speed awareness course before. That second part means the potential revenue from this is limited, and will drop once most people who speed have been on one, and it's only open to newer drivers for the first time.
Same law was due to come in here, but it ran out of parlimentary time at the end of one of the government terms 2 or 3 terms back. It also included a reduction in points awarded for people only just over the limit, and raising speed limits on motorways to 80 to match most of rest of Europe, although I think that might have been dropped before the whole change was lost, and it was the delay due to that which eventually lost the whole bill.
Yeah, I've since seen a figure of £35/head (to the Police) in 2015 or so.
Ok.
Understood.
So how will the likes of Bedfordshire afford their extra 5 Officers after that? I assume it's not actual uniformed Policemen in the stations looking at the speeding evidence but clerical people of some sort in the datacenter somewhere?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.