Talk of Revised Speeding Fine Hikes?

Does anyone know if they've implemented a stiffer fining system that is being posted on YouTube, or is this just scaremongering?

Yes, a new system came into force in April

April 2017 speeding guidlines Evo

I'm buying a diesel lawn mower to commute on now

I know mate, it just seems to be now,..."What can we do to next to depress the shit out of the public, better still, extort more money out of them!"

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in driving like a complete idiot, but I was baited by an unmarked police car on the way to work one morning. The Copper was right up my backside and when I increased speed a bit to make some space, he pulled me over....that's the game they play now unfortunately!

The part I find interesting in the Evo article is the use of the words weekly earning, weekly income and weekly wage. It is possible that each of these words could have a different pound value for the same person. I assume that the government will base the fine on weekly income, but for which period? Maybe you have an irregular income etc...

Whatever the case, it all boils down to extortion. We are just an easy target for extracting cash out of. This country is getting worse by the minute

I agree. However it isn't a tax. If you don't want to pay it - don't speed - or at least don't get caught

Lol, I'll bear that in mind!

What concerns me though is the talk about doing people for being 1 or 2 mph over the limit which I think is using these changes to make money out of people who haven't necessarily speeded deliberately

They'll still have to make an allowance for the accuracy of speedo's and other uncertainties. This is around 10% +2mph, so in a 50mph limit, you can do 57 without a ticket.

Therefore on the motorway you can theoretically do 79mph... lots of people drive an indicated 80ish, so that seems to fit the rule of thumb.

Obviously, the lower the limit, the lower the allowance. So in a 20 limit, 24mph will get you a ticket.

As long as they play by those rules that shouldn't be too bad. As I stated earlier though, I've had a taste of the Police's underhanded tactics when I was baited by an unmarked on the way to work, and a colleague had the same on his motorbike.

I think it's just a case of being aware of the sneaky games that they play to lure people into traps, and to watch your speeds when approaching areas with speed changes (as this is normally where they hide camera vans).

Also, if you intentionally tear around like an F1 driver to expect that one day you're going pay the price,....a hefty price!

Speeding is a binary offence: you either are, or you aren't. The 2mph + 10% is not law, it's just the ACPO guideline - and it's possibly one of the issues: if the limit was enforced at the limit, and not some arbitrary point above it, there would be an awful lot less speeding.

Re Mark_D - extortion? No... don't want the consequences? Keep the speeding to a track. The argument about what the speed limit should be is political, that's all. But you can't complain if you exceed a limit just because you don't agree with it.

I did say it was a 'rule of thumb,' but you'd have a very good case to challenge a ticket if you were within the uncertainty allowance.

In the work I do, we allow different "uncertainty budgets" for each monitoring method. Some are as high as 20% and increase to 50% or more as you get closer to the limit of detection.

So, I would argue that whether or not you are speeding is a calculation, not binary choice. The uncertainty of the radar / lazer gun might be 3%, then you have to account for other factors, such the wildly inaccurate car speedos which usually over-read by 5mph, but not always.

I agree that if we stuck to indicated speed, life would be simpler. But enforcing law is more complicated, and regulators must be proportionate and allow some benefit of the doubt.

I shall continue to drive at 69mph.

I did a BikeSafe Course, and the Police were at pains to teach us to ride to the conditions, rather than the speed limit. If people slowed down for rain and fog and maintained proper distances on the motorway, the actual speed limit becomes less important.




Re-discovered emoticons.....

RAC article explained that the increased fines would be for particularly dangerous occurrences, repeat offenders or those who challenge or fail to respond to a NIP. Otherwise the fine is £100. Apparently the 1.5 times is an up from 1 x your weekly wage/whatever which it was under those circumstances.

A philosophical point - however, the difference between 60mph and 61mph is 1.5 percent; no problem to measure with any of the three most common methods. And speedos are allowed to read high but never low...

Yep, for most speedo's the argument is academic, since they over-read. But, my campervan reads bang on the GPS speed, so there is some variance to account for.

Would be nice to have the French motorway system of 68mph wet and 81mph dry. The unofficial UK speed limit appears to be around 80 - 85 anyway on clear motorways.

Vive la France. I really do rather like their cheese too, with a nice glass of Côtes du Rhône. I often think it's the ideal country. Hot summers. Great skiing, the Atlantic AND the Med. Lots of space. Great trains.... And "we" go and vote Brexit. I really am still so depressed.

Ultimately it's a speed limit and not a target - drive at the limit all the time and you have nowhere to go if you need to increase speed to avoid an incident. i guess it's down to the individual about how they drive - and to take the hit if caught out 👍

Four miles per hour, and a man with a red flag walking in front! Vote for me!

I think I'm just going polish my car up, make it look nice then put it in my house as a classy ornament! I think I'd avoid tickets and turn a few heads at the same time!

Got to be a win, win situation

Sorted!

(and then you get done for not making proper progress...)

Yes, think that's generally known as 'Catch 22!' Lol

The law HAS NOT changed, only the Sentencing Guidelines have. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38724301

These only apply if you end up in Court and the fact is you most probably won't, quite simply the court system could not cope with millions of people, thats why the Fixed Penalty System was introduced! And even if you do end up there, get a good brief and you should be OK.

I've had a couple of tickets in the 25 yrs I've been driving, and that is just because of my own ignorance. I got caught once where they'd placed a well hidden van smack bang next to a speed change, and the other one was when they reduced the speed on a street that I turned into, that I hadn't been down for years. A cop with a handheld was pinging people at the end of the road.

I think they tend to cash in on people who have genuinely cocked up, where as people who blatantly speed should be the Ines they focus on

Unfortunately there is no difference between speeding if you 'genuinely cock up' and blatant/deliberate speeding as it's what's called an absolute offence. In other words unless you can prove you were not speeding then in law you are guilty whether you intended to or not. So both scenarios are fair game.

I know, it's just one of those things you've got to accept. Just a choker if it happens

Yep- been there myself and paid the penalty,(38 in a 30 at 10pm with no one around) then later the next day knocked someone off for the same thing once I was on shift... he was doing 58 in a 30 at school kicking out time though.

You'll never guess what?,...ironically, I think I may have just been caught yet again! Came back from work at about 11.45. I was just following along with the flow of traffic through Hilsea in Portsmouth and I spotted a camera van. I was doing at or just under 40 (like most people around me at the time). Looks like a punch in the goolies is coming my way!

God in heaven, I can see myself having to crawl around like an O.A.P for fear of another ticket. Again, just keeping up with the traffic and finding out I'm one of the many that is probably going too fast

58 in a 30 really is taking the p though! See, I really can't condone that

Fingers crossed you will be ok with that one then...

My understanding (bourne out by experience in Scotland myself and from Stan, traffic cop, of this parish) is that there's still a "public interest" test.

When I got ticketed I had Charlie (13) in the car. He'd been away from home for a month, was wheelchair-bound from a massive recent cancer op, was feeling sick from recent chemo and needed the toilet (not many of those on the A9 in the evening). The road was clear and visibility was great. It was a 3-hour drive.

The procurator fiscal in Inverness decided that it wasn't in the public interest to pinch me. I did explain in my letter that I would do the same thing again and expected any parent would.

Not too sure of law difference in Scotland but sounds like a common sense approach too! Yes PI test can be applied later when weighing up the whole picture in circs such as you describe, and other situations eg getting injured person to hospital etc etc. These situations are the exceptions rather than the rule I think?

Yup. It's just a shame that those particular "boys in blue" omitted the information in their report of the ticket despite saying that they would...

Yes- that's a shame. When Peel founded the modern police service he said words to the effect of 'the police are the public and the public are the police'. My take on that is if policing represents the society it serves then there are going to be a few ars*holes. Give the majority of us a bad name..

Indeed. I was once chatting to one of our local cops and mentioned that I didn't think much of how a certain PC Snow had dealt with an issue involving one of my son's friends.

His response was to express his embarrassment and ask that we do not judge the majority of his colleges on PC Snow's behaviour.

Yup - I had enough problems to be dealing with at that point.

That was definitely the kind of situation where a find should have been waived, without a doubt!

I just worry that I'm susceptible to tripping up and costing myself a lot of money, due to my own stupidity. I am reliant on my car when I'm doing 2,3, 4.00 in the morning starts. It would kill me if I have to take to pedal power, as it seems the Hampshire Police are on a mission at the moment.

P.s, hope the fella is in better health now

I second that

The boy is good, thanks. Unfortunately it's the girl's turn. Faced with the same situation again, I'd have a different conversation.

I told the tax man back in January that I'd be late with my tax return and that I was letting them know out of courtesy. They thanked me for letting them know. I got a fine in April. I rang them and explained my situation and that I was happy to pay any interest owing but I hadn't actually been at my home where my files were since January. The tax man told me that I should have made other arrangements. To say I politely but firmly gave him a piece of my mind, almost covers it. At some point in the "conversation" I obviously passed some test because I was eventually put through to a softly-spoken lady who gave me an extension.

Oh mate,...my thoughts are with you and your poor daughter, bless her. Hope she picks up bud

P.s, as for the tax man, just shows how insensitive & inhuman people can be!

Oh no, this must be catching- earlier today a van just outside Wigston I think I was probably 35-36 in a 30...might be lucky!

Been reading the above posts with great interest and feel Ive unearthed a contradiction......

Speeding is speeding? yes
1mph above the limit or 5 mph above the limit.

I understand that the tolerences given by police forces are only guidelines and they do not need to consider such, the same can be said for driver awareness courses.

However, although I understand the above mentioned "Public Interest" case and the fact that I would probably do the same thing myself, is this still not speeding and breaking the law? What happens if your involved in an accident or kill a pedestrian and speed is a factor? Is your case any different now just because you had a wheelchair-bound person from a massive recent cancer op, was feeling sick from recent chemo and needed the toilet........Answer NO!!

Good debate, I'll enjoy reading more.................

PS Thoughts are with you and your family MRS, you seem to always be up against it

Yes Clintos - speeding is called an absolute offence so unless you can prove that you were not speeding you are presumed guilty in law. so yes, speeding is speeding. Hopefully I can explain the next bit in plain english...

However public interest can come in to play in certain cases at a later stage and in certain circumstances. This is basically where factors like severity, community impact, harm caused to any victim, culpability, age of suspect, proportionality (worth the cost) and even in extreme cases the need to protect the national security (PII) can come into play.

Normally this plays out as part of something called the full code test for offences that may result in a custodial sentence for example. For a minor issue like speeding there would need to be special circumstances. So in the circs outlined earlier, time of night, location and the other factors can be considered. it still doesn't guarantee success of course.

The fact that it was late at night, the location (not outside a school or built up area) the reasons behind it (the comfort and basic dignity of someone with illness) and no harm caused to any specific victim do not mean the driver wasn't speeding, (because unless you prove you were not the law says you are guilty) but it does allow the test to be applied.

The what happens if bit isn't part of the consideration when making this decision (as 'it' didn't happen). However, In the circs given earlier, if someone had been injured say due to a crash, then public interest would likely be in favour of prosecution if the offence was contested.

Many speeding offences are unlikely to be stopped due to public interest (because speeding harms and kills on the roads every day) and most reasonable people can understand that and accept they broke the law.

So speeding is a relatively minor offence that is proactively targetted due to the harm that sometimes happens, and might be prevented, if the speed was in limits. A change in driver culture is sought to prevent those more serious consequences. if that happens then another charge would likely take precedence.

I have pulled speeding motorists who were engaged in the following i) where a loved one was having a baby there and then and needed hospital treatment ii) where her son was bleeding out in the car having been stabbed and no ambulance was available. In both cases my crewmate got into the vehicle to assist and I provided a blue light escort. No one was killed injured or otherwise damaged by the speeding prior to our intervention. Both cases were speeding, and red light contravention, but later applied public interest stopped the prosecution.

There is actually nothing in law that says that a prosecution for an offence will actually take place, but its pretty likely that it will unless special circumstances apply.

i have just realised it is difficult to talk about the law in plain english...

Thanks for the detailed explanation Ballypete, very well put into text I might add.

Interesting read.....

One of the legends of this forum (Stan) was on the traffic side of "chequered gentlemen" and he was always clear and informative about such matters. Sadly he's not been on here for a while and those of us who are longer in the tooth miss his banter.

Your post is far from unclear and I for one look forward to hearing the POV from who's "been there" more often

Thanks Clintos and Edinburgh.

I am a newbie to coupe ownership and soaking up the good advice on this forum- in return I have a pretty good knowledge of the criminal law which I will try and share when needed in the same spirit

I'm pretty new to this site too. I've been on a few of the Punto Forums & Fiat Forum for a fair few years, but I'd just like to thank people for their advice too.

I know most of us are not complete mental cases in these machines, and I like most people, am grateful to the likes of Ballypete for any help regarding the legal side of things.

I think we've all just got to accept that even though we might be trying to drive sensible that (now the screws have been tightened down harder with the new approach by the authorities), we might still fall foul & end up with tickets on a more regular basis.

It's just going to be something we're all going to have to adapt to and accept