Speeding Partnerships

[Drypooldog]

Hello Peeps

Below is an extract from ACPO regarding their guidelines, below that is the correct meaning of the word "leeway" obviously "official leeway" would suggest that it is cast in stone and not to be messed with by those that enjoy a "results based" salary and continuity of employment.


Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) thresholds

Guidelines given to the Police by ACPO state that: "It is anticipated that, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, the issue of fixed penalty notices and summonses is likely to be the minimum appropriate enforcement action as soon as the speeds in the table below have been reached"¹.

This means that there is "official leeway" given to motorists exceeding the speed limit - 10% plus 2mph over the posted speed limit.


LEEWAY - Meaning

1.Room for free movement "within limits", as in action or expenditure

1. extra time, space, materials, etc., within which to act; "margin": to have ten minutes' leeway to act.

I note in particular with interest the expressions "within limits" and within which to act...and it is the defining word "within" that I am most interested.

If the nice guys at the salary factory have a duty to send you a NIP within 14 days or whatever time frame is set, this means they can deliver it to you on day 14...ie "within" the "time frame" or "limits" allowed. That being on day one or day 14. I think this has been tested in the courts on numerous occasions.

And as the ACPO "official leeway" is 10% plus 2 mph, then it would be my understanding that if you were caught driving at speeds 31, 32,33,34 or 35 mph in a 30 mph zone you would indeed be driving "within the limits within which to act" as set by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Can speed partnerships say they have decided that day 15 to deliver a NIP is acceptable to them and therefore should be accepted by you and or the Courts?

If this is the case where would I find the rules on the partnerships placing their own limits that override the ACPO "official leeway".

Would you think if I applied to the police under the FOI they would tell me their understanding of "within the limits"? To me travelling from point 'A' to point 'B' includes both 'A' and 'B'...anything beyond point 'B' being outside the limits.

Looking forward to some reasoned debate.

Drypooldog

[Peter Pedant]

reasoned debate:

The p'lice have always had leeway because not every crime results in a conviction. But it is nice to see it put into writing - on speeding at least.

The point for debate is that the police say they dont have leeway when they do ? I am shocked at that I really am shocked

[jno]

I remember driving past a don't speed sign in Marlyand saying "We NEVER give warnings!" Unfortunately I was going too fast... but it turned out they did give warnings after all. Police probably have leeway the world over.

[ABerrant]

ACPO no longer exists. It was closed down on 31st March 2015 and replaced with The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC). All previous ACPO guidelines may be under review by the NPCC and in any event ACPO could have revised or withdrawn any of its guidelines at any time.

As to the "official leeway" in the table you cite, ACPO, Speed Enforcement Policy Guidelines 2011-2015 also stated that the guidelines:

"…do not and cannot replace the police officer's discretion. Where an officer decides to issue a summons or a fixed penalty notice in respect of offences committed at speeds lower than those set out in the table, he or she must consider the tolerances of the equipment used to corroborate their opinion. Police speed equipment are tested and approved to work with a maximum tolerance of +/-2mph up to 66mph and 3% for all speeds higher than 66mph, so it is possible to use these tolerances as a prosecution threshold. Moreover, in particular circumstances, driving at speeds lower than the legal limit may result in prosecution for other offences, for example dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention when the speed is inappropriate and inherently unsafe."

Thus ACPO guidelines of 10% plus 2 mph were never set in stone.

NIPs must be issued within 14 days but may be received after that time e.g. in the time it takes Royal Mail to deliver said NIP.

[New Judge]

Right. Some reasoned answers to the two points you made.

Firstly, the “10% + 2mph” leeway. The speed limits are as stated in the HIghway Code and you can be prosecuted for travelling at 70.1mph in a 70 limit. However, if this were to be the case there would be large numbers of challenges in court to the accuracy of the measurement. Normal measuring equipment is not capable of reliably and consistently measuring a vehicle travelling at 70-ish mpg to within an accuracy of 0.1mph (0.14%). To avoid high numbers of frivolous challenges the Police Chiefs have decided that a leeway of 10% + 2mph should abate most of those challenges. If you are prosecuted for allegedly travelling at 70.1mph it may be relatively easy to cast sufficient doubt on the evidence to support the charge that you were exceeding the speed limit to achieve an acquital. If you are prosecuted for allegedly travelling at 79mph it would be somewhat more difficult to do so. The prosecution does not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were travelling at 79mph, only that you were travelling at more than 70mph. If you wish to launch a defence on the basis that the measurements were inaccurate the onus falls upon you to do so (convincing the court “on the balance of probabilities”). To prove that the measurements were more than 10% adrift would be far more difficult than proving that they were 0.14% adrift.

Now the 14 day rule. For “summary” offences (these are those that can only be heard in the Magistrates’ Court and of which speeding is but one) the police or the CPS must warn someone against whom they propose to launch a prosecution that they intend to do so. This must be done within 14 days of the alleged offence taking place. For speeding where it is detected by a remote device it is obviously not possible to warn the driver at the time so a “Notice of Intended Prosecution” (a NIP) is sent to the Registered Keeper (RK). This has to be sent so that in normal circumstances it will be received by day 14 (the day following the alleged offence counting as Day 1). The Safety Camera Partnerships (or any other authority) has no leeway in this matter as it is enshrined in Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. However, there are exceptions where the 14 day rule does not apply. Firstly “normal circumstances” exclude such things as industrial action by the postal services, loss of mail by them or “the dog ate my letters as they were delivered”. It is also not applicable when the RK is not the driver. Further time is allowed for the authorities to deal with the information provided by the RK as to the driver’s identity. In all such cases it is a matter for the court to decide whether every effort has been made to comply with the 14 day rule and it is within their powers to strike the matter out if they believe it has not. Other than that there is no general “leeway” to this rule.

[Drypooldog]

Hello Folks

Thanks very much for your responses, all very informative and well received advice.
The point I think that should be made is that the police are becoming somewhat "sterile" in my opinion, it seemingly has become acceptable for them to review, revisit, re configure and just about any other re you can think of. What happened to good old police work and common sense?

Anyone remember the British Motorbike? Great big beasts...that leaked oil all over the pavements and roads. Maximum speeds around 100 mph.
You could ride a 250 cc on a provisional licence for many years. In fact I did for thirty years without accident nor incident. Maximum speed for the 250's I owned was around 65 miles per hour.
Now I can only ride 125cc on my provisional license, but the speed of my 125 is far in excess of the old British bikes. As are most 125cc bikes on the road.

So was it safer back in the day or safer now? In the day the police would stop you, ask where the fire was and then suggest you keep it down. In fact some of the expressions they used to come out with were most amusing. They didn't write tickets for minor infringements but would stop you and offer advice sometimes a stern talking to was required. They used common sense and bike riders had a very healthy respect for traffic police, especially the motorcycle police when they out rode you and caught you.

The point being the respect.

When you have guidelines, you should not leave them open to any individual interpretation.

What is guidance when all is said and done? it appears to me that it is usually the good advice given by a superior intellect who knows better.

There are still specific references to ACPO on the internet, just like product recall notices, why do the powers that be not simply go onto the BBC and advise the public that the 10% plus 2 mph is no longer valid?

It would stop the relentless banter about who is right or wrong on these forums, it would stop the sanctimonious who have a clean licence joining these forums and winding people up who are simply asking questions.
We may not get off and we may have been going two or three miles per hour faster than the indicated speed for the road, but why not ask questions?
It will be a sad day if any of the "preachers" get a terminal illness if the doctors simply say "well it says in the book that you are going to die, no need in us asking the question "can we do anything else?". Similarly where would we be without some of the great scientists who tirelessly try to find new and innovative medicines by thinking outside the box?

A moment in time does not constitute a habit, the shutter speed of a static camera may be 1/250th of a second, some people drive for fifty years without incident, and then for 1/250th of a second they exceed the stated speed limit for arguments sake say 10% plus2 mph.

Does that make them an unsafe driver, a momentary lapse of concentration?
If there were three camera cars in a row, evenly spaced and they all showed a continuous 10% plus 2mph, then I would consider that fair, it may well then be divisive and not accidental and deserve punishment.

It is my opinion that if you give out guidelines as best practice, there has to be a reason as described by one of the posts above, that it will be easy to contest if in fact the accuracy of the equipment and or the speedometers can be somewhat flawed. Nothing is 100 percent certain in much the same way as you cannot have nought per cent finance (although some would have you believe there is such a thing)

It's all in the words and not the deeds anymore.

It my case I will have to accept their most gracious offer and receive 3 more points. I got three for not seeing a one way street sign whilst in a queue of thousands of cars trying to leave a football match, most doing the same thing.

For the future, would I assist a police officer in trouble.

They say you get out of life what you put in.

Dave

[EDDIE51]

So how much over the limit were you when you got caught?
You seem to expect to just be able to travel over the speed limit without penalty. You have already admitted to driving the wrong way down a one way street because you failed to see the one way sign.
The 'good old days of the British motorbike' were back in the 1950s 60s. you can't expect the same standards to apply now with over 30 times the number of vehicles on the road.

[Drypooldog]

30 times more vehicles on the road is an irrelevant argument.
They are 30 times more safe, can stop 30 times more quickly, have tyres that are 30 times better at road holding, and are engineered using materials that are tested 30 times more than previous materials used in manufacture of road vehicles.
It is not about how or why you get charged (using the expression "caught" is a bit of an annoyance at 35 mph)

Seriously, whatever camp you are in, it cannot and will not do the police any good in the long term. These fines have to be "in the public interest" not in the Speed Partnerships interests! I have many friends in the police force, they too find it "questionable" as to why the 10% plus two has been dropped.
I am not alone in my confusion. There will always be those that accept anything they are told to accept, we will never rid our society of these people, nor should we want to. Society needs it's lemmings, the CPS thrive on their support.

Ask yourself this question...If you hit a child at 30 mph would you feel like your conscience should be let off? Because you were within the stated speed
limit ? Of course you wouldn't. There is no amount of leeway on that one.
30, 31, 32, or was the child riding his bike on the road wearing a walkman and didn't hear you.
What you need is the effectiveness of the said camera posting before the vehicle, ie, we have caught 2000 people doing 5 mph in excess of the stated speed limit, and that would mean we have saved 2000 lives. We have taken £200,000 pounds in fines and have effected repairs to these roads and put traffic calming measures in place. They can't do that, they don"t know specifically if in fact they have saved any lives. They assume they have.. They may not have.
In much the same way that a motor scooter passing the camera car at 60 MPH would not feature in their results.One assumes the self righteous take into account the road traffic they don't catch nor take photos of !!
A bit like the £30 mandatory fine for riding a pedal cycle on a public footpath.
If there was ever a danger on the roads and footpaths of the UK, there is one to debate. It is ILLEGAL, it carries a mandatory fine of £30, Yet for some reason, the police can not just use "discretion" they can ignore completely.
Have you never seen a pedal cycle being ridden the wrong way down a road? Or crossing at a zebra crossing, or simply riding diagonally across a road, no lights at night?
Ask under the FOI regulations how many of those "criminals" they have charged !!

I rest my case and take my "valid" points.

However I totally reserve my right to object to unscientific charges being levied to keep unprofessional people in a mundane job that does not repeat NOT save lives. It merely creates a wage for them.

Again I thank everyone for their opinions, it is good to have "healthy debate"
It's a pity we cannot engage the police in the same.
Take care everyone, safe driving and thanks.
Dave

Admitting that one did not notice a sign is a good thing, I never tried to deny it, but....why were the police out if view of the public in that instance?
I am happy with the way I accepted that I missed the sign, most people would try to find an excuse. Does it warrant penalty points....Hmmmm????