the law is an ass...

srichards said:
For speeding you need two lots of evidence. With gatsos you have the radar reading (often wrong with certain vehicle types) and the photographs (can be wrong if the flash interval is wrong). They need to agree to make it a safe conviction. The gatsos have to be checked and maintained to certain standards. Maybe it wasn't which is why they didn't go after anything more.
Click to expand...

Except current GATSOs don't use radar, they use a matrix in the roadway... And before you quote from Wiki, theyre wrong! In the UK they've abolished the radar types and now use piezo-electric strips embedded in the road. They are pretty much foolproof. You can see them prior to the white strips as a few crosses on the road, just like the traffic light road sensors. The photograph must show the front wheel dead on the centre white strip on it won't be used. Needless to say, not many are thrown out!
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
If what you are claiming was correct, you'd have very few convictions from gatso's. The reality is there are almost no acquittals from them.
.
Click to expand...

From what I remember camera partnerships are supposed to throw out the ones where the photographic evidence and the radar readings are too far apart so those shouldn't even be sent out.

I'm sure the type approval documents will say what error margin is allowed.
 
what gets my goat now is that people are getting prosecuted for warning people that they are approaching a mobile camera. Really? If that doesn't reek of revenue raising I don't know what does.

surely getting someone to obey a speed limit comes before them breaking that speed limit and putting £60 in the coffers?
 
Yv said:
I am guessing Lyntons point is which of these two is more likely to cause the scattering of corpses should an accident have occured.....
Click to expand...

And the song goes:

A street kid gets arrested, gonna do some time
He got out three years from now just to commit more crime

A businessman is caught with 24 kilos
He’s out on bail and out of jail
And that’s the way it goes

Is it possible to deal with the situations Lyton mentions systematically and nationally?

I'm always hearing that X did Y in Z and got A and yet another X did Y in Z and got B.
 
Ok I've been looking, can't find any recorded cases of 133 mph in a 40 mph limit...?
 
odd jim said:
Except current GATSOs don't use radar, they use a matrix in the roadway... And before you quote from Wiki, theyre wrong! In the UK they've abolished the radar types and now use piezo-electric strips embedded in the road. They are pretty much foolproof. You can see them prior to the white strips as a few crosses on the road, just like the traffic light road sensors. The photograph must show the front wheel dead on the centre white strip on it won't be used. Needless to say, not many are thrown out!
Click to expand...

Interesting. Is this in response to the use of radar detectors I wonder? Without radar then there is no way of knowing whether a particular camera is live or not... well not without setting it off.

Not sure whether staffs have updated theirs as they have hundreds of them.
 
srichards
GATSO's are triggered in a number of ways, but the evidential part is the 2 photos. The difference in vehicle location against the scale on the road is what is used to calculate the speed of the vehicle and to prove the offence.

Antihero

If it is a revenue collection scheme, then it's the simplest way of avoiding paying it. Drive at the speed limit. Actually it's a tax on stupidity. If you can't see a big yellow box and take action, like slow down, on a road where there are signs with the speed limit and others warning you it's a speed check area, then you have no right to be driving at the speed limit, never mind above it.

surely getting someone to obey a speed limit comes before them breaking that speed limit and putting £60 in the coffers?
Click to expand...

The big round signs with a number inside a red circle are there to do exactly that. All drivers in the UK are adults and have read and understood the highway code, so they are fully aware of their responsibility. The problem is that speeding is one of those criminal, yes, thats right, criminal offences that everyone thinks only apply to everyone else.
 
The speeding penalty does seem unduly lenient.
If, as suggested by srichards this was a mobile camera, this indicates (to me) that the offence did not occur in the wee hours of the morning, more likely at a time when other vehicles were likely to be about.

As for the flashing other cars to warn of speed traps etc, was there not a prosecution recently where the magistrate threw out the case as the police were unable to provide evidence that the flashed car was in fact exceeding the speed limit.

Edit: R v Glendinning 2006 - lorry driver warning other drivers found not guilty. High Court decision with leave to appeal (presumably DPP) denied.

This was referred to in a press release by the Association of British Drivers in June this year after Lancashire Police issued 20 tickets for 'improper use of headlights'
 
Last edited:
antihero said:
what gets my goat now is that people are getting prosecuted for warning people that they are approaching a mobile camera. Really? If that doesn't reek of revenue raising I don't know what does.

surely getting someone to obey a speed limit comes before them breaking that speed limit and putting £60 in the coffers?
Click to expand...

Actually I think flashing traffic coming the other way is dangerous, it's off putting and dangerous.
 
munch said:
Again just because nobody has been stopped doing 160MPH does not mean nobody has ever done it. (it was only used as an example in any case)

I suspect there is a bit more to this than just a comparison between driver 1 & 2. Do you happen to know driver 1?
Click to expand...

I know both driver 1, and driver 2. :shrug:

gramps said:
Were both offences committed in the same jurisdictional area?
Click to expand...

Yes. Both would come under Norwich (Norfolk) courts.

Dave1 said:
You do realise at Court all fines are means tested?

The above sentence falls within the sentence guidelines (and the driver either earns around £100 pw or convinced the court he does).

c50b44b8.jpg

(Calculator courtesy of Pepipoo)
Click to expand...

Yes I do.
 
Taking the facts as presented, driver 2 should have received a more serious penalty. Driver 1's penalty was spot on. No excuse for drink-driving. Not even "morning after" drink driving. If you drink and drive you are a contemptible idiot and deserve to have the book thrown at you.

Also, the speed the drink driver was doing is irrelevant. He/she won't have been punished for doing 25 in a 20. They'll have been punished for being an utter moron who was driving under the influence of alcohol.
 
ghoti said:
Taking the facts as presented, driver 2 should have received a more serious penalty. Driver 1's penalty was spot on. No excuse for drink-driving. Not even "morning after" drink driving. If you drink and drive you are a contemptible idiot and deserve to have the book thrown at you.

Also, the speed the drink driver was doing is irrelevant. He/she won't have been punished for doing 25 in a 20. They'll have been punished for being an utter moron who was driving under the influence of alcohol.
Click to expand...

This is true. If you're over the limit (which in the uk is higher than a lot of countries), you're over and it doesn't matter if it's morning after or right after your last drink - you are still impaired.

I also think 133 (or 136?) in a 40 mph limit, is also utterly stupid. Both are as bad as each other but for different reasons.
 
The Courts sentence for offences in accordance with national guidelines set down by the Sentencing Guidance Council.

For the speeding offence the sentence would be a disqualification of up to 56 days or the licence endorsed with 6 penalty points and a band B fine. This applies to someone who pleads not guilty and who has been found guilty after a trial. If they plead guilty they normally get a discount of up to 1/3 - hence the disqualification period being less than 56 days. A band B fine is equivalent to one weeks income (after tax) - if someone is on benefits their assumed net income was £100.00 per week and has recently been increased to £110.00 per week.

For drink driving with a reading of 36 to 59 the guideline sentence for someone who pleads not guilty is a band C fine and disqualification of 12 to 16 months. In any event there is by law a minimum disqualification for a first offence of 12 months. For a second offence within 10 years the minimum disqualification period is 3 years. For the reading in this case a 12 month disqualification would be the norm. A band C fine is 1.5 times weekly income net of tax (with a 1/3 discount for a guilty plea).

It is also usual where someone is convicted of drink driving to offer them the opportunity to reduce the disqualification period by 1/4 if the attend and successfully complete a Drink Driver Rehabilitation Scheme.

On the information provided the sentences imposed appear to be in accordance with the national guidelines.

Normally in addition to the fine there are costs to pay (usually £85.00 for a guilty plea much more if there is a trial) and £15.00 towards the victim surcharge fund.

In my experience the public at large tend to have very differing views with regard to the seriousness and appropriate sentences for all crimes and historically courts in different areas used to sentence very differently even within a few miles of each other. That is why national guidelines were adopted about 20 years ago in order that people would be dealt with on largely the same basis throughout England & Wales.
 
As for the flashing other cars to warn of speed traps etc, was there not a prosecution recently where the magistrate threw out the case as the police were unable to provide evidence that the flashed car was in fact exceeding the speed limit.
Click to expand...

It goes back further to the AA who were prosecuted for Obstructing Police. At that time they saluted their members as they drove round on their motorbikes. However, if they saw a speed trap, they didn't salute, thus warning drivers.
They were successfully prosecuted for obstructing police.
Thats not the end of the matter though, if a driver uses his headlights to warn other drivers of a speed trap, then he does still commit an different offence,l which isn't and can't be dependent on those drivers speeding or likely too, and that is improper use of warning instrument.
The highway code gives you the reasons, flashing headlights has the same meaning as sounding your horn (in spite of what people think!). They are therefore a warning instrument.
 
odd jim said:
This is true. If you're over the limit (which in the uk is higher than a lot of countries), you're over and it doesn't matter if it's morning after or right after your last drink - you are still impaired.

I also think 133 (or 136?) in a 40 mph limit, is also utterly stupid. Both are as bad as each other but for different reasons.
Click to expand...

I found an interesting simulator with scenarios for drunk, wet weather and mobile phone distraction on whether you end up mowing down a rather stupid child that runs into the road after a ball. I was taught never to do that!

http://www.stoppingdistances.org.uk/simulator/Stopping_Distances.html

It's a nice long straight road.
 
Bernie174 said:
srichards


Antihero

If it is a revenue collection scheme, then it's the simplest way of avoiding paying it. Drive at the speed limit. Actually it's a tax on stupidity. If you can't see a big yellow box and take action, like slow down, on a road where there are signs with the speed limit and others warning you it's a speed check area, then you have no right to be driving at the speed limit, never mind above it.



The big round signs with a number inside a red circle are there to do exactly that. All drivers in the UK are adults and have read and understood the highway code, so they are fully aware of their responsibility. The problem is that speeding is one of those criminal, yes, thats right, criminal offences that everyone thinks only apply to everyone else.
Click to expand...

I agree, if you don't speed you can't be done for it, and if you cant see a big yellow Gatso at the side of the road you are indeed an idiot.

My beef is that people are being prosecuted for warning other drivers that there is a speed camera there, irrespective of if they are above or below the speed limit (and I clearly mentioned I was talking about mobile cameras, not gatso's). Whether they wave, flash, thumbs down, it is an offence of obstructing a police officer and has nothing to do with being distracting to other motorists. Surely though, if someone is, say, doing 40 in a 30 (not condoning it for a second), it is better that they are warned by someone which gets them to slow down instantly rather than let them carry on at 40 for another half a mile or so until they reach the camera????

Have you ever had someone directly behind you set off a gatso? getting half blinded via your rearview mirror is a damn site more distracting and dangerous than flashing lights at someone if you ask me. SPECS cameras are a much better idea in my opinion.
 
Exactly. Speed limits are just that; limits. Too many people take them as guidelines or wrongly believe there is a 10% leeway. If you speed you deserve to be fined and have points on your licence. If you speed as recklessly as this example then I'd like to see a much stricter punishment because it's a blatant disregard for law and safety.

Drink driving deserves zero tolerance in my opinion. If you have a need to drive the following morning just don't drink the night before; it's not that hard or confusing to stay under the limit.
 
srichards said:
I found an interesting simulator with scenarios for drunk, wet weather and mobile phone distraction on whether you end up mowing down a rather stupid child that runs into the road after a ball. I was taught never to do that!

http://www.stoppingdistances.org.uk/simulator/Stopping_Distances.html

It's a nice long straight road.
Click to expand...


Don't even start me on braking distances. Dad's friend is now a retired traffic plod (he taught me to drive) .... 70mph = 315 ft blah blah blah... maybe in 1970 with x ply tyres and a rover whatever with drum brakes. He insists that braking distance/ time is the same for all vehicles...

despite me showing him top gear where Clarkson stopped the Merc Mclaren from 120 to 0 in the distance highway code suggests from 60 0
 
Lynton said:
Don't even start me on braking distances. Dad's friend is now a retired traffic plod (he taught me to drive) .... 70mph = 315 ft blah blah blah... maybe in 1970 with x ply tyres and a rover whatever with drum brakes. He insists that braking distance/ time is the same for all vehicles...

despite me showing him top gear where Clarkson stopped the Merc Mclaren from 120 to 0 in the distance highway code suggests from 60 0
Click to expand...

The thinking distance will be the same regardless.

What's wrong with having a large margin of error?

Having had that scenario happen with the ball that rolls into the road with the stupid child following you do not want to hit them. They'll mark the car for a start ;)

Modern brakes are better but risk compensation means people choose to drive more dangerously as was noticed when they gave taxi drivers abs taxis and compared their behaviour to the non abs drivers.
 
srichards said:
The thinking distance will be the same regardless.

What's wrong with having a large margin of error?

Having had that scenario happen with the ball that rolls into the road with the stupid child following you do not want to hit them. They'll mark the car for a start ;)

Modern brakes are better but risk compensation means people choose to drive more dangerously as was noticed when they gave taxi drivers abs taxis and compared their behaviour to the non abs drivers.
Click to expand...
You're right, but maybe when the quoted figures are so obviously out of date some people may just lose respect for all of the information contained in the Highway code...
And yes, reaction times haven't changed over the years but they can vary wildly between different people, perhaps this should be explained and stressed rather than just quoting a random figure. When I was in my early twenties I was tested on the machine at Hendon and averaged 0.019. I was told that the police class 1 drivers couldn't go above 0.2 without losing their class 1 status, that the average for all drivers was around 0.34 and that the average for 60 year old women was 0.65.
 
I have always felt braking distance is to a point irrelevant. My rational for this is that most of us cant tell what is 50m or 75m etc.

As for the stopping distance of the McLaren, with ceramic brakes etc. then the stopping distance will be a lot less
 
Anticipation helps more than reaction. Reaction is too late. The trouble is already happening under your nose. This is how the young and inexperienced get into bother. I don't think this point is laboured enough when people learn to drive always.

I usually imagine braking distance in car lengths as it is easier to visualise.
 
I'm all in favour of stricter penalties for even minor driving offences. We need to seriously reinforce the idea that driving is a privilege and a responsibility and not a right.
 
Scenario 1..... This person was VERY unlucky! I don't condone drink driving but IMO this is just a technicality, the chances of being very slightly over causing you to have an accident are pretty slim, or more to the point not much more likely to make you have an accident than driving when very tired, ill, being distracted by kids arguing in the back or being on the phone.

Scenario 2..... This moron needs his/her license taken away and to undergo a number of tests/assessments before they are allowed to drive again! Travelling at around 200ft/s on a road like that is a recipe for disaster, no other road users would expect anyone to be travelling that fast, the consequences don't bear thinking about :|
 
Also the drink drive limit isn't based on how you're affected but the alcohol you have in your blood.

I know several people (some may call them alcoholics, other may call them winos) could be well over the limit but not be particularly affected whereas I can start to feel the effects after a single pint, which given my build I'd probably be under the limit (depending on hydration levels prior to drinking etc)
 
Russ77 said:
Scenario 1..... This person was VERY unlucky! I don't condone drink driving but IMO this is just a technicality, the chances of being very slightly over causing you to have an accident are pretty slim, or more to the point not much more likely to make you have an accident than driving when very tired, ill, being distracted by kids arguing in the back or being on the phone.

Scenario 2..... This moron needs his/her license taken away and to undergo a number of tests/assessments before they are allowed to drive again! Travelling at around 200ft/s on a road like that is a recipe for disaster, no other road users would expect anyone to be travelling that fast, the consequences don't bear thinking about :|
Click to expand...

Can't agree with your first point. The limit is 35 ug per 100 ml of breath, and in the uk you won't actually get charged until you hit 40 ug giving you a little more to play with. You WILL be impaired at 40 ug. What difference does it make if you have, say 45 ug per 100 ml of breath the morning after having consumed 10 pints overnight, or drive straight away after having 3 or 4? It makes no difference, the driver is still badly impaired.

To say he's just unlucky is stupid. He was over, end of.

It takes an hour for the average person to lose 10 ug of alcohol. If you drink a lot, it doesn't take a genius to work out you'll be impaired for longer.
 
Last edited:
Uneducated_Rick said:
Also the drink drive limit isn't based on how you're affected but the alcohol you have in your blood.

I know several people (some may call them alcoholics, other may call them winos) could be well over the limit but not be particularly affected whereas I can start to feel the effects after a single pint, which given my build I'd probably be under the limit (depending on hydration levels prior to drinking etc)
Click to expand...

Quite agree...... Sometimes I can drink a bottle of wine and only feel a little tipsy (although I know I'd well over the limit) and other times I can have 2 glasses of the stuff and be giggling like a naughty teenager :LOL:
 
odd jim said:
Can't agree with your first point. The limit is 35 ug per 100 ml of breath, and in the uk you won't actually get charged until you hit 40 ug giving you a little more to play with. You WILL be impaired at 40 ug. What difference does it make if you have, say 45 ug per 100 ml of breath the morning after having consumed 10 pints overnight, or drive straight away after having 3 or 4? It makes no difference, the driver is still badly impaired.

To say he's just unlucky is stupid. He was over, end of.

It takes an hour for the average person to lose 10 ug of alcohol. If you drink a lot, it doesn't take a genius to work out you'll be impaired for longer.
Click to expand...

He was unlucky to get pulled over for doing 25 in a 20 zone for starters, he was then unlucky to be just over the legal limit.

You cannot say with any certainty that his driving would have been impaired to a level which makes him more likely to have an accident than in the the other scenarios I mentioned.

That is my opinion, you of course are completely entitled to your own.....
 
Russ77 said:
He was unlucky to get pulled over for doing 25 in a 20 zone for starters, he was then unlucky to be just over the legal limit.

You cannot say with any certainty that his driving would have been impaired to a level which makes him more likely to have an accident than in the the other scenarios I mentioned.

That is my opinion, you of course are completely entitled to your own.....
Click to expand...

Of course. But when you see as many dead and mutilated bodies as I do as a result of drink driving it's hard to be sympathetic. The limit is set at a reasonable likelihood of impairment. And as I said already, the uk has a relatively high limit.
 
odd jim said:
Of course. But when you see as many dead and mutilated bodies as I do as a result of drink driving it's hard to be sympathetic. The limit is set at a reasonable likelihood of impairment. And as I said already, the uk has a relatively high limit.
Click to expand...

Quite agree - however I must ask.. have you seen any dead / mutilated ones from doing silly speeds (and then coming to an abrupt halt?)
 
Lynton said:
Quite agree - however I must ask.. have you seen any dead / mutilated ones from doing silly speeds (and then coming to an abrupt halt?)
Click to expand...

Drunken drivers have killed far more than speeders, and those speeders who do cause serious accidents normally have aggravating circumstances like being drunk or on drugs.

I think 2nd offence drink driving should get a custodial sentence, it has no place on our roads and I don't care if the drink was consumed 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 days prior. If you drive drunk you deserve everything you get.
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
Drunken drivers have killed far more than speeders, and those speeders who do cause serious accidents normally have aggravating circumstances like being drunk or on drugs.

I think 2nd offence drink driving should get a custodial sentence, it has no place on our roads and I don't care if the drink was consumed 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 days prior. If you drive drunk you deserve everything you get.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to the source?
 
Lynton said:
Quite agree - however I must ask.. have you seen any dead / mutilated ones from doing silly speeds (and then coming to an abrupt halt?)
Click to expand...

Occasionally, though speed of course affects the outcome, it's rarely the cause. I'd say with most fatals I've dealt with, 90% of them involve drink drivers.
 
Last edited:
Drunken drivers have killed far more than speeders, and those speeders who do cause serious accidents normally have aggravating circumstances like being drunk or on drugs.
Click to expand...

Rubbish!
Most of the accidents I've dealt with have other causes than drink drive. Even when one of the parties involved in a crash has been drinking, it does not automatically follow the accident was his fault. Although the insurance company's will assume that to be the case.

Speed is usually involved somewhere in most accidents I've dealt with, either way above the posted limit, or inappropriate to the road conditions. The usual excuse to the second of those is, well I was driving at the speed limit. Sometimes that was true, but often in the conditions that was too high. Speed limits are the maximum permitted not a target. If road conditions are such that the speed limit is too high, then slow down!

For some reason people in the UK, think it's quite right and proper to ignore limits, but hey if some chav drops litter then there's hell to pay. Hypocrisy in action.......
 
Can't help but wonder how many of us have been slightly over the morning after the night before (and got away with it) compared to the number of us doing 133 in a 40....:shrug:
 
Bernie174 said:
Rubbish!
Most of the accidents I've dealt with have other causes than drink drive. Even when one of the parties involved in a crash has been drinking, it does not automatically follow the accident was his fault. Although the insurance company's will assume that to be the case.

Speed is usually involved somewhere in most accidents I've dealt with, either way above the posted limit, or inappropriate to the road conditions. The usual excuse to the second of those is, well I was driving at the speed limit. Sometimes that was true, but often in the conditions that was too high. Speed limits are the maximum permitted not a target. If road conditions are such that the speed limit is too high, then slow down!

For some reason people in the UK, think it's quite right and proper to ignore limits, but hey if some chav drops litter then there's hell to pay. Hypocrisy in action.......
Click to expand...

But driving faster than conditions allow is tantamount to due care, especially if a collision ensues. Read lack of attention, ignorance, poor car control, failure to read the road, lack of anticipation, speed is always secondary to all these factors.

As a traffic cop, I'm astounded by the amount of drink drivers I encounter, and the problem is worse than ever. My last four dead drivers tested above the drink drive limit, as did the girl last week who put three of her friends in hospital. It's far worse than speeding, which, let's face it, we all do to a degree. Maybe that's the easiest way to look at it?
 
odd jim said:
But driving faster than conditions allow is tantamount to due care, especially if a collision ensues. Read lack of attention, ignorance, poor car control, failure to read the road, lack of anticipation, speed is always secondary to all these factors.

As a traffic cop, I'm astounded by the amount of drink drivers I encounter, and the problem is worse than ever. My last four dead drivers tested above the drink drive limit, as did the girl last week who put three of her friends in hospital. It's far worse than speeding, which, let's face it, we all do to a degree. Maybe that's the easiest way to look at it?
Click to expand...

hey, lets get it back in context to my original post......

slightly over the morning after the night before v 3.5 times the speed limit on a single carriageway urban road / residential area...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top