Speed ticket

[John B]

Hi all could anyone help me or maybe even put my mind at rest as today I went past a speed camera van and hit the brakes as soon as I saw it. Could anyone tell me how accurate the speedo is in the terrano 2004 as out of interest I put my sat nav on and took the speedo up to 68 mph but the sat nav said 61 mph and Infact my dad has got an xtrail and he says his is out too. I was on a 60mph road today but my speedo was reading 68 when I first saw the camera van. :nenau. Thanks.

[makeitfit]

Seems about right mate . I reckon on 10% over.:thumb2

[jims-terrano]

Ahhh dilema, I feel for ya. Yes I reckon the terrano speedo is incorrect but so has every other car ive compared. Just the same I never rely on sat nav. Im sure they say summat like 10% over the limit. Try not to worry and give it two weeks but chances are youll be fine.

[solarman216]

You should be fine, they are out by 10% plus especially at higher speeds, what I would like to know is how good is the odometer cos if that is 10% as well we all think we are getting better mpg than we really are :doh Rick

[supergnome]

Its possible to take your speed well before you saw the unit. 68mph on mine would be about 61mph but what was you doing before you braked? David.

[John B]

A car flashed coming the other way so I looked at my speedo to check my speed and it was reading 68 and then a split second after that as I was going around a bend I saw the van then hit the brake but like you said I was told that as soon as the camera man sees you he's got you but I was defiantly 68 on the speedo so I just hope the true speed was 61 or maybe 62. John

[AlexD333]

Well, they definately over read, more so than other vehicles so fingers crossed, the police usually give a 10% margin of error so we can only hope :thumb2

[elty001]

It would be 66 mph or over before they can do you so you might be ok.:nenau

[rustic]

It would be 66 mph or over before they can do you so you might be ok.:nenau

Some friends of mine had the option to go on a speed awareness course.
They both said that asking around that most were only a few mph over the limit.
eg 32 in a 30...
This is probably the objective for low speed offences.

Normally the police don't bother with 80 in a 70 limit.:augie
Not sure what is acceptable in a 60 though... It's 60 for a reason...
On Dual carriageways and Motorways, I judge that as long as at least 10% of the cars are going faster than you... you should be fine.

It's when no one is overtaking you... then you're the target...:doh

[AlexD333]

It's when no one is overtaking you... then you're the target...:doh

I've taken to using this on the motorway, seems to work a treat :cool:

Th fact ive been pulled over like 10 times in 3 years says something isn't working :lol

My old mr2 was a magnet for police cars, frontera got seized.. :doh

Nearly forgot I did Get pulled in terrano.. :naughty

[elty001]

Only ever been done once in 20 years of driving.
Was doing 35 in a 30 zone.
Had the chance to do the driver awareness thingy but they didn't do it on a weekend so I would lose a days pay and travel costs so I took the 60 quid fine and 3 points.
Never made a difference on insurance.

[AlexD333]

Only ever been done once in 20 years of driving.
Was doing 35 in a 30 zone.
Had the chance to do the driver awareness thingy but they didn't do it on a weekend so I would lose a days pay and travel costs so I took the 60 quid fine and 3 points.
Never made a difference on insurance.

Your mad, id loose a weeks pay for no points :lol

[kitchenman]

Courts differ, in Essex they work on 10% +2 mph, so you would get away with it at 68, thats unless they have moved the goal posts.
As I recall speedometers have to be accurate to +/-10% so the 2MPH is a fair allowance.
I was doing 58 in a 50:eek: the speedo in my Partner said 50:doh, the flash lit the road up well

[Barrbeast]

frontera got seized..

Alex mate, why did they sieze your Frontera?... (apart from the fact it was a Frontera :augie)

[briggie]

Alex mate, why did they sieze your Frontera?... (apart from the fact it was a Frontera :augie)

no insurance ?

[makeitfit]

Alex mate, why did they sieze your Frontera?... (apart from the fact it was a Frontera :augie)

Something to do with dodgy bumpers :lol

[AlexD333]

Alex mate, why did they sieze your Frontera?... (apart from the fact it was a Frontera :augie)

Briggie was spot on, I was careless with my insurance, didnt check my payments, they tried to take the payment twice, (both times one day later I have enough funds :doh)

so they void the insurance without telling me until I got pulled :(

I actually appealed and went to high court,

the old skool judge was rough!!

"no insurance is no insurance, 6 points and fine" *hammer down* :eek:

[John B]

No bumpers ?? :lol :thumb2

[sp00k]

The law DOES state 10% +2mphon the whole speeding thing.Plus there is a lot of arguments about regarding them vans as well as they are marked saying what constabulary there from however the people inside are not police officers so that can be classed as impersonating a police officer.If you get a letter by them you need to state who was driving the motor,however you DONT have to sign it and if it went to court it can not be used as there will be no signature

[briggie]

just be aware ..... lots of things can invalidate your insurance , undeclared mods is just one of them , obviously insurance companies will try to wriggle out of paying for anything , but if your insurance is invalid .... you lose your motor ... simples

[micktheshed]

My speedo is 20%+ @ 30mph, 10%+ @ 60mph & correct @ infinity LOL.
I suspect the odometer is similar as slower journies ARE 'longer'; they don't just seem like it LOL.
Don't slag-off Fronteras without good reason, over 11years/70K (total 100K when I sold it) I had mine, it was far more reliable than my present Terrano has been over 2 years/8k (total 28K)! It NEVER got stuck, Terrano has been towed out twice (oh the shame !!! LOL). It's how they are maintained that counts.
Now Discos you can slag-off.............I speak from experience.

Before anyone asks, I bought the Terrano because it fits down my drive (like the Frontera did but most 4x4s don't!) & I needed an auto with some go about it. I was also promised good reliability by both my sons (both Jap car nuts) but ......I hooked now.

[macabethiel]

just be aware ..... lots of things can invalidate your insurance , undeclared mods is just one of them , obviously insurance companies will try to wriggle out of paying for anything , but if your insurance is invalid .... you lose your motor ... simples

There is a common misconception that is also held by Insurance Company staff (and some Polce Officers ) when it suits them that they can make your insurance invalid for all sorts of reasons at the drop of a hat this is just not true in civil law.

By law they have to cover you under "Third Party Road Traffic Act" cover even for breaches such as no current MoT or your driving licence has expired or you have fitted tyres other than the manufacturers original specification.
In effect you have no comprehensive cover or third part liability cover just basic "Road Traffic Act cover" i.e. cover for personal injury to other people not the driver or any vehcle or road furniture damage..

If you have an Insurance Certificate or Cover note issued by an insurance company then provided the cover was not taken out completely fraudulently (such as being disqualified or using a false name) then the Insurance remains in place to cover you under the basic "Road Traffic Act" cover until the Insurance Company go through a legal procedure called "Voidance".

To do this they have to write to you and give you 7 days notice that the cover is being voided and ask you to return to return the Insurance Certificate. If you fail to return the Certificate then it becomes legally voided. You then have no Insurance.

That is of little comfort if you have paid out for Comprehensive Cover and then find yourself personaly liable and responsible for the repair costs to another vehicle especially if the incident was not your fault.

You would not be convicted of having no Insurance if you produced the Insurance Certificate at court provided it had not been voided.

Not sure how the law now works with so many Certificates being issued by Internet only Insurers but pretty sure its the same. For those who have access see Stones Justices Manual for rules on Insurance Voidance..

[makeitfit]

The law DOES state 10% +2mphon the whole speeding thing.Plus there is a lot of arguments about regarding them vans as well as they are marked saying what constabulary there from however the people inside are not police officers so that can be classed as impersonating a police officer.If you get a letter by them you need to state who was driving the motor,however you DONT have to sign it and if it went to court it can not be used as there will be no signature

Whoa , hang on dude. Some of that is not the case anymore. The "not signing" the form thing is about 10 years out of date. Also the 10% +2 is not LAW .
It may be a guide for some constabularies but it does vary around the country. I know a few friends who've been nicked and fined for far less than 10% over speed limit.

[solarman216]

Whoa , hang on dude. Some of that is not the case anymore. The "not signing" the form thing is about 10 years out of date. Also the 10% +2 is not LAW .
It may be a guide for some constabularies but it does vary around the country. I know a few friends who've been nicked and fined for far less than 10% over speed limit.

Seconded, Rick

[AlexD333]

I think if you went the whole way and argued it would be difficult to convict under certain circumstances, how accurate can a radar gun really be?

10% margin of error certainly! but to the exact mph... Can't see it, also calibration is surely required regularly? :nenau

[solarman216]

I think if you went the whole way and argued it would be difficult to convict under certain circumstances, how accurate can a radar gun really be?

10% margin of error certainly! but to the exact mph... Can't see it, also calibration is surely required regularly? :nenau

That is why you have the right to call up the last calibration test on the radar that got you, many cases have failed because it was not done when it should have been. Rick

[AlexD333]

That is why you have the right to call up the last calibration test on the radar that got you, many cases have failed because it was not done when it should have been. Rick

Write this down :clap

[macabethiel]

The law DOES state 10% +2mphon the whole speeding thing.Plus there is a lot of arguments about regarding them vans as well as they are marked saying what constabulary there from however the people inside are not police officers so that can be classed as impersonating a police officer.If you get a letter by them you need to state who was driving the motor,however you DONT have to sign it and if it went to court it can not be used as there will be no signature

There is some true but misplaced context here about the 10 % rule.

The Construction and Use Regulations lay down what vehicles need to be fitted with a speedometer. The original legislation was tested in law many years ago and it was held that if your vehicle was fitted with such a speedometer then if it was acurate with a margin of 10% then your vehicle complied with the legislation.

This does not imply in law that you always have a margin of 10 % plus say 2 mph to be held to be in excess of the speed limit that is a seperate issue. The CPS have given guidelines to Police Forces as to how a successful prosecution needs to add a margin of error. This leaves a defence for the speeder if his speed was not over the 10% margin. Some Zero tollerence Police forces have acted outside the ACPO and CPS guidelines when enforcing the law but many have come unstuck on appeal.

[sp00k]

There is some true but misplaced context here about the 10 % rule.

The Construction and Use Regulations lay down what vehicles need to be fitted with a speedometer. The original legislation was tested in law many years ago and it was held that if your vehicle was fitted with such a speedometer then if it was acurate with a margin of 10% then your vehicle complied with the legislation.

This does not imply in law that you always have a margin of 10 % plus say 2 mph to be held to be in excess of the speed limit that is a seperate issue. The CPS have given guidelines to Police Forces as to how a successful prosecution needs to add a margin of error. This leaves a defence for the speeder if his speed was not over the 10% margin. Some Zero tollerence Police forces have acted outside the ACPO and CPS guidelines when enforcing the law but many have come unstuck on appeal.


Well ive use that twice in court and won my case's and even when they said it was a zero tolerance thing going on at the time.OK re-read what i said and i got that law bit wrong however it does count in a court of law and is admissible.

[macabethiel]

Well ive use that twice in court and won my case's and even when they said it was a zero tolerance thing going on at the time.OK re-read what i said and i got that law bit wrong however it does count in a court of law and is admissible.

Yep we are both right I have stated the defence using the 10% speedometer rule and you have quite correctly argued your case and won.

Its a fact that most people are either afraid of the courts or can't be bothered to put forward a reasonable defence themselves with or without a solicitor.

Also many Magistrates benches wrongly convict and are not appealed against at the Crown Court or higher courts. Its even worse on guilty pleas as Magistrates have convicted people for offences they did not in law commit this happens when the Clerk to the Court does not pick up on errors or advise the Magistrates corectly in matters of law.

All justice is flawed but I believe we still have a pretty good system even though its weighed in favour of the rich.

e.g. Steal a packet of biscuits from Tesco and if you are caught then the full weight of the Criminal Justice System swings into action with pssible arrest, caution,conviction,fine or imprisonment etc.

Steal a few hundred thousand pounds (or millions) in the City of London from the Pension Funds of ordinary people with a bit of insider trading and its a joke - they Police themselves and more often than not get away with it!

Why one famous defendant in the Guiness Fraud trial argued he was suffering from Alzymers / Demensia and was aquitted - he went on to get better and become a Company Director again. His co-defendent was sent to prison and guess what ? He is back in the City again!!