Only 5% of drivers who crash were breaking the speed limit

[darmstadt]

Why Germans can drive at 155 mph or higher on their motorways, but in the UK it is fixed to 70 mph?

Germany does actually have a speed limit, albeit voluntary, of 130 kph (you'll see the signs as you go over the border. If you have an accident over that speed, even if it wasn't your fault you'll still be liable for some of the insurance costs and maybe fined. German car manufacturers, apart from Porsche, all voluntarily, limit their cars to a top speed of 155mph. Mine is limited to that yet it can do 180 mph. I can take it to the manufacturer who will remove the software lock and I must then take it to the TüV (like MOT) who will then give me a new certificate.

[AtW]

If you have an accident at speed over 130 kmh (85 mph?) then you are going to be dead...

[_V_]

Tell that to the Hamster.

[Paddy]

Until I know details of the case I would not take that seriously - there are obviously exceptions to the rules, but law is law - some people can get away with it, but there are plenty of cases where they did not, like that woman who lied on form who was driving the car at the time of speeding offence - she got 4 months in prison and rightfully so.

While I strongly disagree with the system of speeding convictions that rely on self-incrimination, it is certainly not acceptable to lie in court while defending yourself.

What ever the prosecution, it has to be “Beyond reasonable doubt” as opposed to a Civil Court which is “Which side id most believable and presents the best case”

“My friend” will have to state that given the camera lines are not painted the correct distance apart making the secondary check invalid and given the fact that he believes his speedometer in within the legal bounds of 10% error there is reasonable doubt that he committed an offence if his speedometer was showing 32mph.

[AtW]

What ever the prosecution, it has to be “Beyond reasonable doubt” as opposed to a Civil Court which is “Which side id most believable and presents the best case”

True - perjury is a serious offence and will have to be proven to a much higher standard than speeding case. For example that woman was done for faking some paperwork claiming it was her sister or someone like that driving car at the time.

The "hardness" of prosecution case however should not affect one simple thing - lieing in court is committing perjury: criminal offence that will stay on record for a very long time, likely jail sentence and disgrace for life. All for what - avoiding 3 points and 60 quid fine?

Your "friend" was either speeding or he did not or he can't remember. If he is to be called as a witness then he should say the truth whatever it was.

Margin of error of 1 mph is another and the most important matter in this case. By the way 10% are not legal limits - they are just police guidelines.

If I was done for 31 mph in 30 mph zone then I'd certainly do all I can do keep appealing up to the highest courts on technical grounds - these cameras are not reliable enough for 1 mph difference.

[DimPrawn]

My plan

Is to force everyone who gets any kind of motoring ticket or is found to be at fault on an insurance claim to retake an extended advanced driving test (at their own expense).

Result, no more traffic congestion

[Paddy]

If you have an accident at speed over 130 kmh (85 mph?) then you are going to be dead...

No so. I know someone daft idiot as he was doing 90mph in fog. Another idiot had broken down on the motorway and had left his car Peugeot across three lanes without putting the lights or hazard flashers on. The car in front of his hit and pushed it across his path. He hit it (in is Volvo) Air bags went off car a right off but apart from bruises he was OK.

[ASB]

What ever the prosecution, it has to be “Beyond reasonable doubt” as opposed to a Civil Court which is “Which side id most believable and presents the best case”

“My friend” will have to state that given the camera lines are not painted the correct distance apart making the secondary check invalid and given the fact that he believes his speedometer in within the legal bounds of 10% error there is reasonable doubt that he committed an offence if his speedometer was showing 32mph.

It doesn't work quite like that. Speeding is an absolute offence. The actual speed is part of the statement of facts, i.e. the evidence. Granted if you can establish that it is flawed, due to the markings being dubious or the reading or the timing between them then that renders the evidence inadmissible and acquital inevitible.

There is no legal bounds for a 10% error. However there is a part of the construction and use regulations that makes it illegal for a speedo to over read by more than 10% or to under read at all.

[AtW]

One should expect worst case scenario in such situations.

[Paddy]

One should expect worst case scenario in such situations.

Hanging?