Flashed On The M25

[interele]

I got flashed on the M25 today. Hands up ! The variable speed said 40
and I was doing 45 - guilty as charged. The thing that gets me is that
I was in a line of cars all slowing down. The car in front didn't get flashed
and neither did the car behind. Cars in the centre and right lane were
going considerable faster and they didn't get flashed. What did I do to
deserve this :-(

2015 sucks

[ToraToraTora]

45 in 40 would not get you nicked and in any case they don't flash on the M25. probably you someone flashing his lights nearby

[furrypusscat]

There used to be 10% allowance due to inaccuracies of speedometers but I don't think that is always the case now. As you say you will have to wait and see. If not heard anything by end of 6 - 8 weeks I would think you will be ok.

[sunny-dave]

Assuning the vehicle is registered in your name (and the DVLA has your correct, current address) the Speed Nazis only have only 14 days to send the the NIP (notice of intended prosecution) to you - allowing for possible postal delays you are in the clear after about 16 days.

[ToraToraTora]

if your speedo said 45 you where probably doing about 40 anyway, I'll be amazed if anything happans

[Old_Geezer]

They most certainly do flash on the M25 !

[Peter Pedant]

If I drove - I think flashing might keep me awake

[New Judge]

“Is there a tolerance level these days?”

Although any speed above the speed limit can lead to prosecution, in England and Wales there has always been a tolerance below which action is not normally taken. In 2000 this was formally set, by the Association of Chief Police Officers, at 10%+2mph above the limit. In Scotland there is similar tolerance but the precise level has not been published. This tolerance was not to accommodate possible inaccuracies in vehicle speedometers (which, by law, must never under record but instead can over record by up to 10%). The tolerance was allowed to prevent frivolous challenges to the accuracy of measuring equipment. (If a driver defends a speeding allegation by challenging the accuracy of the measuring equipment the burden shifts to him to cast doubt on its accuracy. It is obviously more onerous to cast doubt that the measurement is more than 10% inaccurate than it is to show it is just 2 or 3% inaccurate).

During last summer it was hinted by Police Scotland that their (unpublished) tolerance level might be discontinued:

http://www.driving.co.uk/news/just-1mph-too-fast-and-youre-nicked-new-zero-tolerance-approach-to-speeding/

Some forces in England and Wales are considering following suit. Bedfordshire police announced that parts of the M1 may also be subject to “zero tolerance”:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11975971/Motoriasts-face-zero-tolerance-approach-to-speeding-on-the-motorways.html

As far as I know neither force’s proposal has yet been implemented (my article suggests that the M1 scheme may be operational by April 2016). I am therefore most surprised, Vulcan, to hear that you were threatened with prosecution for doing 44 in a 40 limit and absolutely astounded to learn that action was taken against a driver doing 31mph in a 30 limit. I have never heard of anybody threatened with prosecution for such a small margin over the limit. Are you sure these were the speeds alleged by the police and not the speeds the drivers believed they were travelling at?

“…the Speed Nazis only have only 14 days to send the the NIP (notice of intended prosecution) to you - allowing for possible postal delays you are in the clear after about 16 days.”

Not, strictly speaking, correct. If the NIP is not served on the Registered Keeper (RK) by day 14 (with the day of the alleged offence being day zero) then a prosecution cannot be pursued – postal delays or not. The difficulty the RK has is that if the NIP is posted in time to arrive within 14 days it is deemed to have been served unless the RK can convince a court that it has not. So the onus is on him to prove a negative – always a bit difficult. But if he does convince a court that the NIP was not served in time the prosecution fails. This was addressed in the case of Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside. In this case the particular issue was a late NIP delayed because of a postal strike. The court ruled in Mr Gidden’s favour:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2924.html

“ ..money for old rope!"

Er... yes Bernie. But the old rope (and the money raised) depends upon people breaking a fairly easy to understand law and – currently at least – by quite a margin.

[stocksman]

The 10%+2 isn't official although most forces do use it. There was an article released recently saying forces at the lower end of the M1, J10 downwards were considering charging anyone who was 1mph over limit because ''they are always short of funds towards the end of the financial year''.

[New Judge]

It isn't "official" stocksman, in that it is not enshrined in law. It is, however, official guidance from the ACPO as to how speeding offences should be approached. As I said, you can be prosecuted for exceeding the limit by one mph. But in normal circumstances you would not be because the ACPO guidance which is issued for the reasons I stated.

The scheme to abandon the tolerance in Bedfordshire on the southern end of the M1 is the subject of the Daily Telegraph article I provided the link for. It has not yet been implemented and it is my belief that it is very unlikely that it will be.