# private charge notice



## Sandyn (11 Mar 2021)

I got one of these recently, but wasn't driving the car. I am the keeper. I genuinely don't know who was driving. I know the circumstances, it was a genuine misunderstanding of where a permit was valid for, but the appeal on that basis was rejected. After doing a lot of research, reading lots of incorrect/out of date information and apparently unclear information on the Citizens Advice Scotland site, it seems that the law has changed recently. If the driver is not known, the keeper becomes liable for any charges, so these private parking companies have now much more power than before. Since I was not the driver, there are no ways to appeal on any of the independent appeals facilities. If they take the keeper to court, they will probably win.....unless anyone has better info??


----------



## Rorschach (11 Mar 2021)

Need more detailed information on the circumstances really. I find it very odd you don't know who was driving your car etc.

I have won a case through POPLA here in England but whether my appeal method would work for you is another matter.


----------



## Sandyn (11 Mar 2021)

I have three cars used by family members. I don't know who was driving, and I don't really want to know. I can truthfully say I do not know. I am under no obligation to find out or if I did know. I am not legally obliged to say.  At one time that would have prevented the PCN from proceeding legally. Now as the keeper, I think I'm stuffed!!
Since I wasn't the driver. None of the appeals such as POPLA are open to me.


----------



## Droogs (11 Mar 2021)

If you can prove you were at a location where it would be impossible for you to be responsible/involved in the car being where it was and can genuinnely claim to be unable to identify or provide a list of possible drivers then wait until it goes to court and ensure that your laywer is able to appear and prove this. The case will probably be found in your favour especially if you show evidence that this has been communicated tot he company. It does mean that if the driver is found they will then be liable to a "taking without permission" charge by the local plod


----------



## Rorschach (11 Mar 2021)

Hmmm, well yes I think you are stuffed. Appealing might well be more cost and hassle than just paying up. Try negotiating with the company, I have heard it can be very successful.


----------



## paulrbarnard (11 Mar 2021)

You can provide a list of possible drivers who used the vehicle in the day. You are can not be expected to know by the minute. By providing the list you have fulfilled your obligation. They can then contact all the drivers if they wish. I have a ticket dripped in this situation, even though I was one of the possible drivers.

Edit: That was typed on my iphone half awake. Here is the English translation
You can provide a list of possible drivers who used the vehicle on the day. You can not be expected to know the driver minute by minute. By providing the list of possible drivers you have fulfilled your obligation. They can then contact all the drivers if they wish. I had a ticket dropped in this situation, even though I was one of the possible drivers.


----------



## flh801978 (11 Mar 2021)

Why shouldnt you or whoever trangressed pay?
you or your unknown parked without authority or payment on someones private land
you were caught
pay up like a man


----------



## Sandyn (11 Mar 2021)

The driver had permission to drive the car. Basically I provide a car for two people to use. I never use it. The parking company has the upper hand since the law changed in Scotland. I can't see any way out. So far, I have just provided all the information I have. I was not the driver and I genuinely don't know. They haven't asked me for any other information. Now they are making the 'reasonable assumption' that I was the driver. 
I don't understand why they just don't say per Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 Section 95, they now have the right to recover any unpaid charges from the keeper.


----------



## Sandyn (11 Mar 2021)

flh801978 said:


> parked without authority or payment on someones private land
> you were caught
> pay up like a man


Thanks for your advice. I have of course considered this, but they have to prove to me that they have the right under Scottish law to charge for it. If they do, then it will be paid, but until they make that 100% clear. I will resist all attempts by them to pay me the charge. It looks as if they have, but so far they haven't gone down that route, which is why I am querying it. These PCN companies have a history of making mistakes and getting things wrong. I am just exercising my rights to defend the charge and asking for advice of anyone had been in a similar situation.


----------



## marcros (11 Mar 2021)

I would ask the family for volunteers as to who was there and got it. Then either get the guilty culprit to pay it or do so yourself. Either way, pay it and move on.


----------



## Distinterior (11 Mar 2021)

I have always been under the impression that the "Keeper" of the vehicle is ultimately responsible in the UK, for any parking fines incurred by that vehicle if the ACTUAL authorised driver at the time could not be identified or wasn't prepared to admit they had parked there.

If you're saying that it's not physically possible that one of your authorized family members could have parked there on that date, that's a different matter, but trying to split legal hairs to avoid liability is only going to cost you/ your family member more money & inconvenience in the long run.


----------



## TheUnicorn (11 Mar 2021)

From what you've said you don't have any real grounds not to pay, so pay up and move on. closed book


----------



## Sandyn (11 Mar 2021)

marcros said:


> Either way, pay it and move on.


I will do that when I am 100% certain they have done everything by the book, the driver will pay. 


paulrbarnard said:


> You can provide a list of possible drivers who used the vehicle in the day. You are can not be expected to know by the minute. By providing the list you have fulfilled your obligation. They can then contact all the drivers if they wish. I have a ticket dripped in this situation, even though I was one of the possible drivers



Thank you...interesting to know.

I have done a bit more digging. 
The circumstances are that the the car was parked at an adjacent block of flats because the resident had to give up their parking while work was being done on their block of flats (cladding). A permit was issued and displayed, to allow parking on that street, but at a different place to where the car was parked. This was not easy to decipher from the permit documentation. No diagrams only block numbers.. The same company monitor the parking at all flats in the area, so the same sign is up everywhere. It was reasonable for the driver to assume that they could park there, because the parking sign did not clearly identify that there were in fact different parking rules for different blocks of flats and there is nothing to easily identify the blocks of flats. The parking sign was not clear enough in this instance. Each sign should say which block of flats that particular sign applies to. I think this is reasonable grounds to appeal, but it's the driver who has to do that.


----------



## Stan (11 Mar 2021)

The resident of the flats will know who it was who visited them. They are under no obligation to say, of course.


----------



## Distinterior (11 Mar 2021)

Sandyn said:


> I will do that when I am 100% certain they have done everything by the book, the driver will pay.
> 
> 
> Thank you...interesting to know.
> ...



That is all interesting information Sandyn and they may well be valid reasons for the actual drivers defence if the actual driver decides to challenge the PCN in court,.....But, it has no bearing on the fact that it is your ultimate responsibility & therefore liability to pay the fine as the keeper of the vehicle if the actual driver at the time is not willing to admit they were the one who parked the car there.....


----------



## Just4Fun (11 Mar 2021)

Distinterior said:


> I have always been under the impression that the "Keeper" of the vehicle is ultimately responsible in the UK, for any parking fines incurred by that vehicle if the ACTUAL authorised driver at the time could not be identified or wasn't prepared to admit they had parked there.


I wondered about that a few years ago when in the UK and I drove a vehicle that I think would fall through the net. The owner of the vehicle had died but probate had not yet been granted so the new owner/keeper of the vehicle was unknown. The most likely new owner/keeper was the spouse of the deceased, someone who did not hold and had never held a driving licence. The insurance policy on the vehicle was in the name "The estate of ....". The registration document was still in the name of the deceased. What would have happened if I, or anyone else who drove the vehicle at that time, had got a speeding fine, parking fine, bus lane fine or whatever? Who would have been asked to name the driver? Who could be held responsible if the driver could not be identified? In a way it is a shame tht nobody driving the car received any penalties as it would have been interesting to see how it played out.


----------



## Distinterior (11 Mar 2021)

@Just4Fun,
In the UK, the "Keeper" of the vehicle is not necessarily the "Owner" of the vehicle, and does not even need to have a driving licence, so in your scenario,....I havent got a clue!!!!  I would hazzard a guess that it would be the deceased's Spouse....?


----------



## Just4Fun (11 Mar 2021)

Droogs said:


> It does mean that if the driver is found they will then be liable to a "taking without permission" charge by the local plod


Why would that be? If Sandyn's wife and 15 kids all have permission to use the vehicle, and all could legally do so, the driver could indeed be unknown to but authorised by Sandyn and "taking without permission" would not apply.


----------



## Droogs (11 Mar 2021)

I mentioned it as he had not said he could provide a list of authorised drivers.


----------



## Jameshow (11 Mar 2021)

Sandyn said:


> I will do that when I am 100% certain they have done everything by the book, the driver will pay.
> 
> 
> Thank you...interesting to know.
> ...


Sounds a pretty good case tbh. 

Cheers James


----------



## Sandyn (11 Mar 2021)

Distinterior said:


> liability to pay the fine as the keeper of the vehicle if the actual driver at the time is not willing to admit they were the one who parked the car there


Yes, I fully understand that, which is why I am trying to find a way out for the driver. There are four people insured to drive the car. I could ask the question, who was driving, but then I couldn't honestly say that I don't know. I am simply following the PCN company's procedure and answering honestly. One of the options on the company web site was on what grounds are you refusing to pay. The only honest answer I could give was that I was not the driver. They have not specifically asked me who the driver was. I am under no legal obligation to divulge that info if I knew. 
The car had a open permit to park in that area. It was issued by the parking company. I have just noticed it is a day permit only, so they may have issued the wrong permit. The more I look into it, the more I sense something doesn't add up.


----------



## Distinterior (11 Mar 2021)

Sandyn said:


> ......I am under no legal obligation to divulge that info if I knew.



I'm sorry Sandyn,....but I believe you ARE legally obliged to divulge that information. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is YOUR responsibility to find out who parked the car where they did.
By failing to do so, would mean that YOU would be liable for paying the fine as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

The circumstances of the parking incident itself, as valid as you may feel those circumstances were, has no bearing on the validity of their claim that you are ultimately responsible.


----------



## silentsam (11 Mar 2021)

Sandyn said:


> The circumstances are that the the car was parked at an adjacent block of flats because the resident had to give up their parking while work was being done on their block of flats (cladding). A permit was issued and displayed, to allow parking on that street, but at a different place to where the car was parked. This was not easy to decipher from the permit documentation. No diagrams only block numbers.. The same company monitor the parking at all flats in the area, so the same sign is up everywhere. It was reasonable for the driver to assume that they could park there, because the parking sign did not clearly identify that there were in fact different parking rules for different blocks of flats and there is nothing to easily identify the blocks of flats. The parking sign was not clear enough in this instance. Each sign should say which block of flats that particular sign applies to. I think this is reasonable grounds to appeal, but it's the driver who has to do that.



Either the driver at the time has to come forward with this defence or you have to pay the fine.


----------



## Stan (11 Mar 2021)

English/Welsh law and Scots law broadly follow the same principles, but often differ in the fine detail of the wording. Lots of cases are won and lost on that fine wording, however.

Under English/Welsh law if the offence under consideration falls under the Road Traffic act 1988, the plod can require the keeper to divulge the details of the driver. ( A T78 iirc ). Failure to do so is an offence. A reasonable defence would be that there is a pool of authorised drivers and the keeper has no way of knowing. Scots law may be different, and you would have to do some research.

However, the fact that a private parking firm is involved suggests to me that parking has been "decriminalised" ( not strictly accurate, because it was never a crime, just an offence ), and now comes under civil law. If so, the police will not be interested because they have no jurisdiction. You will need to research this also.

If it was me, I would start by making an appeal to the better sides of the possible drivers asking the one to own up. If nobody comes forward I would let it be known that my generosity has run out because somebody has dropped me in the soft and smelly, and henceforth nobody can have use of the car. You never know, the innocent parties might persuade the culprit to come forwards. If/when they do, I would get them to identify themself to the parking company. After that, I would file the matter under S.E.P. ( "someone else's problem").

If the above generates no joy, I would consider carefully whether or not I have a strong enough case to fight them and win. If I fought and lost it could potentially cost thousands in legal fees etc. Failure to pay such a debt could result in bailiffs seizing goods ... the possibilities could be horrendous.

Round here, some lawyers offer a fixed price one-off consultation. You present what you have and they tell you whether you should fight or roll over. You lose the consultation fee of course, but this is nothing to what you would lose if you are flogging a dead horse. This is what I would do if I wanted to fight.


----------



## silentsam (11 Mar 2021)

Stan said:


> Round here, some lawyers offer a fixed price one-off consultation. You present what you have and they tell you whether you should fight or roll over. You lose the consultation fee of course, but this is nothing to what you would lose if you are flogging a dead horse. This is what I would do if I wanted to fight.



A consultation with a lawyer - even a cheap one - generally would costs as much as just paying the fine.


----------



## Stan (11 Mar 2021)

Indeed it would.

I would have to decide how much the principle was worth to me.


----------



## D_W (11 Mar 2021)

I would imagine the law was changed because there were too many situations where someone got out of tickets by saying they didn't know who the driver was. 

In the US, a judge or local magistrate would say "you can either use the appeals process by finding the driver involved, or you can pay the fine as the owner of the car. If you aren't the driver, you can't issue an appeal, that's the rules"

If you said "i'm not legally obligated to find the driver", they would say "that's right, you don't need to because you're legally obligated as the owner of the car, so if you don't want to find the driver, that's fine, you're responsible".


----------



## D_W (11 Mar 2021)

(we have red light cameras here. for "safety"). People used to have a habit of driving through red lights (Sometimes during the day with disastrous results, but 100 times more often if driving in the middle of the night where there is no traffic and not wanting to wait). 

The camera snaps a license plate picture with a flash at night, the company running the camera finds the plate number and issues a ticket to the owner of the car. The owner is responsible.

This has gone over like fahrt in church (get the german joke with cars there? hah!....fahren?) as the for profit company keeps some and gives some to the municipality. Dirty pool. 

But the owners is responsible, even if the smudgy picture makes out someone of a different gender driving, it's the law. Of course, these days, a skirt in a picture with a male car owner may not mean anything as the owner may have just felt the need to wear a skirt that day.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Mar 2021)

You are conflating two seperate arguments, 1/ whether you as registered owner should pay, and 2/ whether the fine was justified in the first place. Try to deal with one at a time.


----------



## Skydivermel (11 Mar 2021)

Sandyn,

Go here FightBack Forums and follow the links for private parking tickets and clamping.

Read thru a few posts first and they will help you out.

I've used this site 5 times and never paid a ticket.


----------



## Sandyn (11 Mar 2021)

Skydivermel said:


> Go here FightBack Forums and follow the links for private parking tickets and clamping.
> 
> Read thru a few posts first and they will help you out.
> 
> I've used this site 5 times and never paid a ticket.


Thank you!!!! Very useful


----------



## Stevejmon (11 Mar 2021)

Sandyn said:


> Thank you!!!! Very useful


I have read about a few of these cases and they are most often not entirely correct and can be fought.

The most important thing, it seems, is do not admit who was driving at the time. Once that is conceded it becomes harder to fight.

Good luck.


----------



## artie (11 Mar 2021)

A couple of years ago SWMBO parked on a carpark equipped with number plate recognition cameras.

Upon leaving she paid the £1 fee but entered one digit of her number plate incorrectly.

So shortly she received a demand for say £30, I don't remember exactly. or £60 if not paid within a certain period.

Wonder of wonders she still had the receipt, so she scanned it and emailed it with an explanation. They were having none of it, wouldn't back down and more or less said it didn't matter that she paid the fee but that she did not fulfil her side of the contract, which required her to enter the reg number correctly.
So SWMBO sat down and typed a letter to the head office filling all the details , times dates etc and finished up with " I SWMBO declare I am willing and able to compensate you fully for any loss or damage either personal or corporate upon proof of claim.

They never answered just sent their same cow clap letter twice more. She replied with the exact letter twice and we haven't heard from them since.


----------



## danst96 (12 Mar 2021)

PCNs are issued by private companies and are not law binding. The only way they can pursue the charge is through commercial courts along the line of an unpaid debt for a "service" you owe them for. I have heard and read in a few places that some people ignore everything from them because ultimately the cost to pursue £100 through court is not worth it to them. Whether this works and is true I am not sure.


----------



## PhilipL (12 Mar 2021)

Some years ago I parked near the eye hospital in Edinburgh. The street was empty and I had a blue badge (for my mother). Got a ticket because I was slightly over white lines into a motorcycle bay - though the lines were on cobbles and very hard to see. After a bit of discussion (they were not going to give in) I looked at the ticket I had received and saw reference to a piece of legislation. It turned out that they were citing legislation for parking in the City of London. I pointed this out and they quickly dropped the fine. I should have gone public at the time (10 years ago?) and seen how they dealt with all the fines they had served with those badly produced tickets.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Mar 2021)

danst96 said:


> PCNs are issued by private companies and are not law binding. The only way they can pursue the charge is through commercial courts along the line of an unpaid debt for a "service" you owe them for. I have heard and read in a few places that some people ignore everything from them because ultimately the cost to pursue £100 through court is not worth it to them. Whether this works and is true I am not sure.



That used to be the case, they would often just let them go but changes in the law and their techniques mean they win much more often now and I think they can even reclaim some of their costs. They have staff who are paid to do this job so the actual costs don't matter to them. Best not to ignore them especially if you are indeed in the wrong.


----------



## danst96 (12 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> That used to be the case, they would often just let them go but changes in the law and their techniques mean they win much more often now and I think they can even reclaim some of their costs. They have staff who are paid to do this job so the actual costs don't matter to them. Best not to ignore them especially if you are indeed in the wrong.


Yes it may be cheaper not to ignore. I got one last year and tried the ignore technique. The issue here though is my vehicle is a company car so when I wasnt responding they simply passed the fine (increased amount as well because it had gone past the 14 day deadline) to my company instead who then subsequently paid it without question and docked it off my wage lol. I am not advising you try the above, just what I found out previously.


----------



## danst96 (12 Mar 2021)

danst96 said:


> Yes it may be cheaper not to ignore. I got one last year and tried the ignore technique. The issue here though is my vehicle is a company car so when I wasnt responding they simply passed the fine (increased amount as well because it had gone past the 14 day deadline) to my company instead who then subsequently paid it without question and docked it off my wage lol. I am not advising you try the above, just what I found out previously.


Might I add, I was in the no park zone for a total of 10 minutes (as long as it takes to eat a McDonalds burger). Cost me £220.


----------



## Glitch (12 Mar 2021)

Skydivermel said:


> Sandyn,
> 
> Go here FightBack Forums and follow the links for private parking tickets and clamping.
> 
> ...



+1 for this. Very helpful guys on here to help with private and council tickets.

I've used the site many times, mostly on behalf of family and friends.

Went to London Tribunal a few years ago to help a family friend.
Lost the case and they got a parking ticket during the hearing .
Successfully appealed the ticket and the council had to change the parking signs!


----------



## Rorschach (12 Mar 2021)

danst96 said:


> Might I add, I was in the no park zone for a total of 10 minutes (as long as it takes to eat a McDonalds burger). Cost me £220.



Ouch!

I think with a swift reply to the charge and maybe a little white lie you could have got away with that one. Something along the lines of the stop being an emergency?

A friend was fined for being in a car park for 10 minutes longer than the specified time, they had broken down. Luckily they had the foresight to take pictures of the breakdown van etc so when the fine came they challenged it. At first I think the company refused but when pushed that my friend was happy to go to court they backed down quite rightly.


----------



## danst96 (12 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Ouch!
> 
> I think with a swift reply to the charge and maybe a little white lie you could have got away with that one. Something along the lines of the stop being an emergency?
> 
> A friend was fined for being in a car park for 10 minutes longer than the specified time, they had broken down. Luckily they had the foresight to take pictures of the breakdown van etc so when the fine came they challenged it. At first I think the company refused but when pushed that my friend was happy to go to court they backed down quite rightly.


Yes in hindsight i should have argued with it more but at the time i was bogged down with other things and i kept forgetting i had the fine even. Oh well live and learn. The PCN guys are scum IMO, money making racket and nothing else. 

Its along the same line as police camera vans. Privately contracted companies (not the police) out to make a quick buck only. They do not offer anything in terms of keeping speed down and they are often on high speed roads in concealed spots.


----------



## Blackswanwood (12 Mar 2021)

danst96 said:


> they are often on high speed roads in concealed spots.


 aka accident blackspots


----------



## marcros (12 Mar 2021)

danst96 said:


> Yes in hindsight i should have argued with it more but at the time i was bogged down with other things and i kept forgetting i had the fine even. Oh well live and learn. The PCN guys are scum IMO, money making racket and nothing else.
> 
> Its along the same line as police camera vans. Privately contracted companies (not the police) out to make a quick buck only. They do not offer anything in terms of keeping speed down and they are often on high speed roads in concealed spots.



how else can a private landowner prevent people from using their land as a car park, and enforce signs that parking is not allowed? It would be chaos in every town centre.

I admit that it is annoying to get a ticket, but they all start from either breaking a rule or somebody's interpretation that that was the case `eg a little bit over the white line).


----------



## danst96 (12 Mar 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> aka accident blackspots


where they park in the areas around where I am they are not accident spots. Excellent revenue making spots though. I have nothing against police enforcing the speed limit, I am all for it, I witnessed myself a terrible accident where a young woman was nearly killed but I have an issue where they are pursuing something thats largely ineffective and is just to increase the coffers. The fact its done by a private company....


----------



## danst96 (12 Mar 2021)

marcros said:


> how else can a private landowner prevent people from using their land as a car park, and enforce signs that parking is not allowed? It would be chaos in every town centre.
> 
> I admit that it is annoying to get a ticket, but they all start from either breaking a rule or somebody's interpretation that that was the case `eg a little bit over the white line).


I agree, in this case it was not very clear, there was some signs that i found out afterwards but i didnt notice them at the time. it was in the midlands while i was travelling for business so was not familiar with the area. It was a pub carpark behind a maccers where i literally stopped for 10 minutes to eat the food as the mcdonalds car park was completely overflowing. Another other option was eat while driving.... I think not.


----------



## marcros (12 Mar 2021)

danst96 said:


> I agree, in this case it was not very clear, there was some signs that i found out afterwards but i didnt notice them at the time. it was in the midlands while i was travelling for business so was not familiar with the area. It was a pub carpark behind a maccers where i literally stopped for 10 minutes to eat the food as the mcdonalds car park was completely overflowing. Another other option was eat while driving.... I think not.



I do agree with that in many instances there is enough signage to be legal (just) but it is clearly a money making exercise and the signage is deliberately poor. 

if the aim is to prevent parking, a big sign saying no parking seems obvious to me. How can a person comply with an instruction that they don't know about.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Mar 2021)

danst96 said:


> Might I add, I was in the no park zone for a total of 10 minutes (as long as it takes to eat a McDonalds burger). Cost me £220.


You have no teeth?


----------



## Rorschach (12 Mar 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> aka accident blackspots



They park in a location near where I live, there has never been an accident there even before sped cameras etc existed. What there is though is a downhill stretch that causes people to naturally speed up and there is a handy out of the way spot that the camera van can park where it is just out of view until it's too late. You come down the hill at 30, gravity naturally increases your speed and just at the point where you would be going the fastest the camera van sits waiting. They also point in both directions because anyone coming up the hill would add a little acceleration to help them get up it as it's quite steep and long.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Mar 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> aka accident blackspots


There are cameras on an open fast road near me - they cause accidents where there were few as people now slam their brakes on approaching them. No one seems to have the will to remove them - they're earners.


----------



## danst96 (12 Mar 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> You have no teeth?


got teeth but i had to sell a kidney


----------



## Rorschach (12 Mar 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> There are cameras on an open fast road near me - they cause accidents where there were few as people now slam their brakes on approaching them. No one seems to have the will to remove them - they're earners.



A camera near a school here was removed after a child was killed by someone paying more attention to their speedo than the road and rolled onto the pavement. It wasn't an official removal for that reason of course, they would never admit that cameras can cause accidents, instead the local residents took matters into their own hands and put it out of service in a variety of interesting ways. Repair costs soon overtook revenue income.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Mar 2021)

20 mph limits near schools here, children crossing between parked cars and drivers with their eyes on their speedos.


----------



## bluenose (12 Mar 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> There are cameras on an open fast road near me - they cause accidents where there were few as people now slam their brakes on approaching them. No one seems to have the will to remove them - they're earners.


Observation is the name of the game Phil, of all surroundings and of vehicles immediately in font and of some distance ahead too


----------



## Ian down london way (12 Mar 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> I wondered about that a few years ago when in the UK and I drove a vehicle that I think would fall through the net. The owner of the vehicle had died but probate had not yet been granted so the new owner/keeper of the vehicle was unknown. The most likely new owner/keeper was the spouse of the deceased, someone who did not hold and had never held a driving licence. The insurance policy on the vehicle was in the name "The estate of ....". The registration document was still in the name of the deceased. What would have happened if I, or anyone else who drove the vehicle at that time, had got a speeding fine, parking fine, bus lane fine or whatever? Who would have been asked to name the driver? Who could be held responsible if the driver could not be identified? In a way it is a shame tht nobody driving the car received any penalties as it would have been interesting to see how it played out.


Maybe the executor who would have responsibility for the assets until such time as they are passed on. The executor probably has responsibility for allowing an asset of the estate to be used.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Mar 2021)

bluenose said:


> Observation is the name of the game Phil, of all surroundings and of vehicles immediately in font and of some distance ahead too


Being avoidable doesn't seem to stop the accidents. Very few accidents aren't avoidable.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Mar 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> 20 mph limits near schools here, children crossing between parked cars and drivers with their eyes on their speedos.



Yeah it's a 20mph limit but it's on another steep, long hill. After the camera was removed they put in speed bumps which although I also dislike them, probably did a far better job than the camera and safer for too as you don't have to worry about your speedo in the same way.


----------



## artie (12 Mar 2021)

An article in the telegraph recently, suggested there could be 90,000 ringers on UK roads.

So just because they have a pic of a car the same model , colour and registration as yours doesn't mean it's you.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Mar 2021)

Yes, we got a parking ticket while our car was parked for the day outside my wife's workplace in Truro. The ticket came from Worthing.


----------



## Lons (12 Mar 2021)

A camera van is very regularly parked on the edge of the local town and is very lucrative for similar reasons to examples already posted, last public info figures was several hundred times over a 5 year period, there's never been a single serious accident on that stretch in more than 30 years however the same van also covers the 60 mile stretch of busy A road to the Scottish borders where there are regular very serious sometimes fatal accidents and the deployment over the same period was 27 times 14 of which were in a village with downhill stretch to the 30mph signs, there has never been an accident there either apparently. 
The revenues from many of these vans are huge and in many cases imo have little to do with safety and while I have no sympathy for people who deliberately speed I don't much like entrapment either.

Anyone thinking it's bad in the UK, and it is , needs to spend some time in Italy where there are deliberate schemes to catch innocent drivers even in free public car parks, I got conned in Lucca after following direct advice from the information office 500 yards from the park, long story and on a different occasion south of Garda where I bought and displayed a ticket, got a summons 8 months later of E90 for not having a ticket, I still had it among the docs so sent a copy with a snotty letter to the mayor telling him to get stuffed and come and arrest me if he liked, I couldn't however get out of the £30 admin charge from the hire company as they took it from my credit card and it was in the small print of the contract.


----------



## danst96 (12 Mar 2021)

Lons said:


> A camera van is very regularly parked on the edge of the local town and is very lucrative for similar reasons to examples already posted, last public info figures was several hundred times over a 5 year period, there's never been a single serious accident on that stretch in more than 30 years however the same van also covers the 60 mile stretch of busy A road to the Scottish borders where there are regular very serious sometimes fatal accidents and the deployment over the same period was 27 times 14 of which were in a village with downhill stretch to the 30mph signs, there has never been an accident there either apparently.
> The revenues from many of these vans are huge and in many cases imo have little to do with safety and while I have no sympathy for people who deliberately speed I don't much like entrapment either.
> 
> Anyone thinking it's bad in the UK, and it is , needs to spend some time in Italy where there are deliberate schemes to catch innocent drivers even in free public car parks, I got conned in Lucca after following direct advice from the information office 500 yards from the park, long story and on a different occasion south of Garda where I bought and displayed a ticket, got a summons 8 months later of E90 for not having a ticket, I still had it among the docs so sent a copy with a snotty letter to the mayor telling him to get stuffed and come and arrest me if he liked, I couldn't however get out of the £30 admin charge from the hire company as they took it from my credit card and it was in the small print of the contract.


overseas tickets are a nightmare. Its pretty hard to spot cameras in other countries and many such as The Netherlands and Germany its almost impossible to tell speed limit changes. I would suggest not ignoring speeding tickets from The Netherlands or Germany. I used to travel (pre covid) around twice a week to different European countries for business, mostly to Holland, Germany, Italy and France and I got nailed on several occasions speeding unintentionally. I tried ignoring the Dutch ones along the lines of i couldnt understand the letter as it was in Dutch but this was a mistake because eventually i got detained at the border when i arrived. They were very decent though, my flight had been delayed and i was running late and i said i would sort in the evening on my return flight so they let me in and and i sorted that evening when i flew back to the UK.


----------



## paulrbarnard (12 Mar 2021)

danst96 said:


> Yes in hindsight i should have argued with it more but at the time i was bogged down with other things and i kept forgetting i had the fine even. Oh well live and learn. The PCN guys are scum IMO, money making racket and nothing else.
> 
> Its along the same line as police camera vans. Privately contracted companies (not the police) out to make a quick buck only. They do not offer anything in terms of keeping speed down and they are often on high speed roads in concealed spots.


Actually I hold the opposite view. These things do not have any impact on people who respect the rules. The rules are generally there to ensure safety of others or fair use of resource. If you get a ticket from a speed camera or a parking ticket or similar it is because YOU failed to respect the regulations put in place to protect others rights and indeed lives. 
Close to 2000 people die every year in the UK due to traffic ‘accidents’. 30% of these list speed as the contributing factor.


----------



## evildrome (12 Mar 2021)

I think you have a good case. I suggest that one of your family members suddenly "remembers" they were driving.

Then you can fight the case which given the signage issues, I'm pretty sure you'll win.

Otherwise you appear to be stuffed.


----------



## evildrome (12 Mar 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> Actually I hold the opposite view. These things do not have any impact on people who respect the rules.



I agree with danst96, "The PCN guys are scum IMO".

They are scum. Nothing better than legalised gangsters.

Yes, parking should be enforced but at a rate commensurate with the "loss".

Its a legal maxim. You can only claim damages for actual loss. Not "imaginary" losses. 

You may not levy punitive charges. Punishment is the prerogative of the state.

A £90 charge for overstaying in a "free" car park by 1 hour is, in my book, punitive and in no way at all commensurate with loss.

Somebody somewhere took a nice big fat bung to re-write the law to suit the PCN industry.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Mar 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> 30% of these list speed as the contributing factor.



Where did you find that figure?

A quick google says 3-4%






Speeding drivers cause only 3% of car accidents, figures reveal


Only 3 per cent of car accidents are caused by speeding drivers, Government figures have revealed.




www.dailymail.co.uk




.


----------



## bluenose (12 Mar 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Being avoidable doesn't seem to stop the accidents. Very few accidents aren't avoidable.


Sorry Phil but I can't agree with that by any stretch of the imagination. Generally speaking they are not 'accidents' anyway, they are 'collisions' and more to do with poor driving for an absolute multitude of reasons.


----------



## Glitch (12 Mar 2021)

danst96 said:


> Might I add, I was in the no park zone for a total of 10 minutes (as long as it takes to eat a McDonalds burger). Cost me £220.



I can beat that. I had a kebab that cost me £650
That was in the days when clamping and towing was allowed. Legalised extortion.
Standing in the kebab shop and saw my car going past behind a tow truck. 
Took the parking company and the 'landowner' to small claims court. Won by default, neither turned up. They'd have lost anyway.
Didn't get my money back though.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Mar 2021)

bluenose said:


> Sorry Phil but I can't agree with that by any stretch of the imagination. Generally speaking they are not 'accidents' anyway, they are 'collisions' and more to do with poor driving for an absolute multitude of reasons.


Precisely. They are avoidable.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Where did you find that figure?
> 
> A quick google says 3-4%
> 
> ...


A "contributing factor" and "caused by" are rather different.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Mar 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> A "contributing factor" and "caused by" are rather different.



I wondered if that was the confusion. I mean I guess speed contributes to nearly 100% of accidents since it's pretty difficult for two cars to collide if neither is moving!


----------



## paulrbarnard (12 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Where did you find that figure?
> 
> A quick google says 3-4%
> 
> ...


U.K. government official data...


----------



## Rorschach (12 Mar 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> U.K. government official data...



Do you have a link? Wording is very important as Phil has pointed out as well.


----------



## Glitch (12 Mar 2021)

evildrome said:


> I think you have a good case. I suggest that one of your family members suddenly "remembers" they were driving.
> 
> Then you can fight the case which given the signage issues, I'm pretty sure you'll win.
> 
> Otherwise you appear to be stuffed.



I would not divulge the identity of the driver. OP knows he is not legally obliged to say who it was.
Consumer Advice Scotland says: 

*There’s no law in Scotland that states the registered keeper of the car is automatically liable for a parking ticket. You are also under no obligation to disclose the details of the driver at the time.*

The parking company have rejected the initial appeal (they always do)

OP can ignore (becomes a game of brinkmanship, could get taken to court but sounds like genuine error) 
Or take it through the Independent Appeals Process. 
Sounds like a good chance of winning. Still don't need to disclose who the driver is.

Put it on the Fighback Forum and you should get some advice on how to play it. They'll help word the appeal if you go that route.


----------



## Distinterior (12 Mar 2021)

Well,....I never knew the laws In Scotland were so different from the laws here in England.....I stand corrected.☺
I wonder why ....?


----------



## Glitch (12 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Do you have a link? Wording is very important as Phil has pointed out as well.



6% in 2019

Govt stats

Contributory factors for reported road accidents


----------



## Droogs (12 Mar 2021)

@Distinterior Scots law has a difference premise of operation and more possible outcomes than English law. The Act of Union was only passed as Scots law was guaranteed its independence (the last article to be agreed upon) from English courts. The biggest difference is in regard to land ownership and public access, there is no such thing as an act of trespass in Scotland and therefore restriction of access must be done under different legal means. So reasonable loss through an act of trespass such as overstaying your welcome in a carpark does not apply here


----------



## paulrbarnard (12 Mar 2021)

evildrome said:


> I agree with danst96, "The PCN guys are scum IMO".
> 
> They are scum. Nothing better than legalised gangsters.
> 
> ...


Doesn't change the fact that someone didn't follow the rules in order to receive the notice. If it was genuinely unfair, breakdown, signage or other circumstances then an appeal is warranted but from personal observation (of family members) it's usually down to their own fault.

The bit I agree with is that the amount is often excessive and that generally comes from 'administration' fees slapped on. Thats what should be regulated to a greater extent. The same for the £10 service charge for processing your £2 import duty...


----------



## paulrbarnard (12 Mar 2021)

Glitch said:


> 6% in 2019
> 
> Govt stats
> 
> Contributory factors for reported road accidents


RAS50008 shows _fatal_ accidents as 15% for exceeding speed limit, 7% travelling too fast for the conditions or 22% combined. The 30% I quoted was from earlier figures from Hansard and thankfully they have dropped in the last 10 years.

The 6% you quote is for all accidents and only for exceeding the speed limit, not where speed is a contributory factor.


----------



## Distinterior (12 Mar 2021)

*


Droogs said:


> @Distinterior Scots law has a difference premise of operation and more possible outcomes than English law. The Act of Union was only passed as Scots law was guaranteed its independence (the last article to be agreed upon) from English courts. The biggest difference is in regard to land ownership and public access, there is no such thing as an act of trespass in Scotland and therefore restriction of access must be done under different legal means. So reasonable loss through an act of trespass such as overstaying your welcome in a carpark does not apply here



Sorry, I should have said I didnt know the "motoring" laws were so different in Scotland...I was fully aware there were different laws in other legal matters.

So,....That being the case then,....you can basically park where you like in Scotland and if/ when you get a parking ticket, you just say you dont know who was driving and you, as the keeper of the vehicle are under no obligation to tell anyone who was driving at the time and the powers that be cannot hold you responsible in any financial way...??!!......I wished I'd known that mid September last year whilst in Edinburgh for the day....It would have saved me a long walk and a climb up that hill to the Castle & Museum from where we had the car booked in for the day....

.A fantastic day out by the way and the weather was glorious.


----------



## Droogs (12 Mar 2021)

No the registered keeper is legally required to either name, provide a list of possible candidates or take responsibility, hence my earlier comment about Plod then looking at charging someone with a taking offence as, if you are denying responsiblity and can not name an authorised driver for the time of the action then it is taken as a given that the vehicle was there without consent and the driver if identified has commited a crime. Also it does mean that you cannnot be clamped on privately owned land= extortion, but the police and local authority still have the right to do so.


----------



## Distinterior (12 Mar 2021)

So,...What about what Glitch stated in his post earlier...?


----------



## Glitch (12 Mar 2021)

Droogs said:


> No the registered keeper is legally required to either name, provide a list of possible candidates or take responsibility, hence my earlier comment about Plod then looking at charging someone with a taking offence as, if you are denying responsiblity and can not name an authorised driver for the time of the action then it is taken as a given that the vehicle was there without consent and the driver if identified has commited a crime. Also it does mean that you cannnot be clamped on privately owned land= extortion, but the police and local authority still have the right to do so.



So Consumer Advice - Scotland are wrong then?

Parking on private land is not a police matter. It comes under civil law. It's a contract between you and the landowner - you read the sign and decide if you accept the terms and conditions of the contract. If not drive away. If you don't see the sign, or the wording is incorrect then there's no contract.

Council Parking in England and Wales was decriminalised many years ago. The police don't get involved in parking tickets. Not sure about Scotland.


----------



## Skydivermel (12 Mar 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> Doesn't change the fact that someone didn't follow the rules in order to receive the notice. If it was genuinely unfair, breakdown, signage or other circumstances then an appeal is warranted but from personal observation (of family members) it's usually down to their own fault.
> 
> The bit I agree with is that the amount is often excessive and that generally comes from 'administration' fees slapped on. Thats what should be regulated to a greater extent. The same for the £10 service charge for processing your £2 import duty...



The thing here with Private parking companies is the law is very much on the parkers side. PPC's are simply a money making machine and have had it far too good for far to long. 90% of people just pay it and that is what they rely on. For the sake of a stamp just about everyone who get a private parking ticket can walk away without paying a penny. I recently won a case against Islington council about the timing of their meter clocks. 

Example 1. I overstayed by 12mins in an Aldi car park. I was at a site meeting which over ran. I received a ticket for £60. I just threw it in the bin. 2nd letter arrived this time fee upped to £100. In the bin. 3rd Letter arrived threating court and now fee upped to £160. In the bin. 4th Letter arrived, FINAL DEMAND for £160. In the bin. Never heard from them again. So question is, why did I just bin them. For any private parking company they must have a legal agreement with the Landowner, not the shop/petrol station/railway station/airport/ or what ever. In the case of the Aldi car park, parking was free for 2hours. I overstayed for 12mins. There's a law about consequential loss. In this case they couldn't justify the fee, how do you charge for 12mins when 2hrs is free. Plus it's very likely in 99% of cases that the landowners legal agreement with the PPC wouldn't stand up in a court of law. 

Example 2. I was called into London during the lockdown. I parked in a railway station carpark. Usually you can pay a man in a hut or pay at a machine. The man in the hut wasn't there & the only available machine wasn't working. My car was the only car in the car park when I parked. When I got the PCN the photo of my car was shown as the only car in the spaces shown on the photo circa 20 free spaces. The fee was £60. The fee for all day parking was £6.00. So question is how do they justify a £60 fee when all I took up was one space of the 300 available. I wrote to them and questioned the fee, they came back seeking £100. I went back to them and explained the consequential loss law and if they fancied their chances in court I'd see them there. Guess what, end of discussion.

Example 3. These companies make their tickets look almost identical to a legal ticket you would get from either a council warden or a police officer. They do this to scare people into paying. They all so offer the carrot stick approach in as much as if you pay within 14days we'll half the cost. So 1st bit of advise is never admit to them you were the driver. The driver is always responsible, not the registered keeper. 2nd, always always appeal, (they will always come back to you with a load of bollo(ks saying appeal failed) however as soon as you appeal the fine must be held at the initial fee. i.e. £50 or £60. Doing so gives you chance to get your ducks lined up and in most cases months to prepare. 

Firstly go here FightBack Forums and read this article (part shown below)

Legal Enforceability of Private Parking Tickets

There is a great deal of doubt about the legal enforceability of private parking invoices that are issued to motorists. Unlike parking tickets issued by local authorities, which are backed by statute, the enforcement of private parking is essentially a matter of contract law. A private parking company needs to overcome many significant legal hurdles in order to be successful, which include:

Establishing that any claim is under the law of contract, rather than the tort of trespass (see case of _Excel Parking Services v Alan Matthews, Wrexham County Court, May 2009_ where the parking company lost on this ground);
Establishing that the parking company has sufficient interest in the land to bring a claim (see case of _VCS v. HM Revenue & Customs_, Upper Tax Tribunal, a binding decision at the level of the High Court) in which it was decided that unless the PPC has a proprietary interest in the land they are not able to offer contracts for parking;
Establishing that all of the elements of a contract (offer, acceptance, consideration) are present;
Except in England and Wales, establishing who the driver was on the relevant occasion, as any contract can only be enforced against the driver, who may or may not be the registered keeper of the vehicle;
Establishing the prominence and adequacy of any warning signage, and that the driver actually saw and understood the signage (_Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]_);
Establishing that the amount claimed is not an unlawful “penalty”, including that there was no attempt to “frighten and intimidate” the driver (see well reported case of _Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman, Mansfield County Court, March 2008_ where the parking company lost on this ground), and that charges must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or actual damages caused by trespass (see the Department of Transport's guidance on the _Protection of Freedoms Act_);
Establishing that any contract does not fail foul of the _Unfair Contract Terms Act_ and associated regulations.
Don't just pay. Fight these leeches.


----------



## Droogs (12 Mar 2021)

No, in the case of a private matter such as parking, you are not required to, if it is brought by the council, legal authorities or police then you are. In England and the rest of UK, the process proceeds due to the act of trespass, as once you overstay your permission you are commiting trespass, which until recently was a criminal act. The subsequent relating civil law is still for the most part based on that fact and is how they parking companies can then use the law of trespass to get money out of you. Here in Scotland they have to do so using a different civil code.


----------



## Glitch (12 Mar 2021)

Distinterior said:


> *
> 
> 
> Sorry, I should have said I didnt know the "motoring" laws were so different in Scotland...I was fully aware there were different laws in other legal matters.
> ...



The contract to park is between the driver and the landowner (or their appointed rep).
I think it changed in England and Wales in recent years. under certain circumstances they can go after the registered keeper. Before then the advice was to ignore the demanding letters and debt collectors (not bailiffs)

I don't understand it all in detail but the guys on the FightBack forum do.


----------



## DougT (12 Mar 2021)

Someone used your reg.no.
I had the same. Charged for entering London and my car was in my drive. Haven’t been nowhere near London.


----------



## timothyedoran (12 Mar 2021)

Rather than get all hot under the collar it might just be less stress to cough up the money and move on. Unless that is you are better at detaching your emotions from stuff like this.


----------



## Glitch (12 Mar 2021)

timothyedoran said:


> Rather than get all hot under the collar it might just be less stress to cough up the money and move on. Unless that is you are better at detaching your emotions from stuff like this.



Because the driver believed they had the right permit. Genuine error, no one lost any revenue.

If you’re deliberately tried to avoid a parking fee and get caught then maybe you pay up because you gambled and lost.


----------



## artie (12 Mar 2021)

DougT said:


> Someone used your reg.no.
> I had the same. Charged for entering London and my car was in my drive. Haven’t been nowhere near London.


Did you have much trouble sorting it out?


----------



## alanpo68 (12 Mar 2021)

The first thing to do is to google the company and see what kind of record they have for court action. Some companies work on the premise that enough people will just pay up and never take court action whilst others are extremely litigious.


----------



## Sandyn (13 Mar 2021)

Update to my original question.
In the private parking company's process. I have now passed the point where not knowing who the driver was, is an advantage to me, so I now know, however it is irrelevant.
I have investigated what has happened looked at the signs/street marking and found that the street parking company's signs and the permit they issued is not clear. As I said in an earlier post, there is an area controlled by the company. This covers two parallel streets, Street A and Street B. if you have a permit for Street A, it seems you can't park on Street B and vice versa. The permit the car was displaying gives no indication that it is for Street A only. The parking company's signs do not differentiate which area they cover, i.e. this is the sign for street A and this is the sign for street B. 

Only Street A is marked by the council at one end, and there would be no reason for the driver to go to their home passing the sign, so would never see it. Street B is not marked in any way. One of the most important rules for parking companies is that the signs MUST be clear. In this case I genuinely believe they were not and the permit issued did not show for which street the permit was valid. 
My plan is to continue following the company process and go to independent review, but if that fails, I will be happy to go to court. I firmly believe that a judge would agree the process was flawed and will reject the case. I would also request that all parking charges since the process was introduced should be reviewed to see which were issued incorrectly and should be repaid. Additional information is the driver was a nurse returning from duty in the evening, but she doesn't want that to be used. The PCN was issued at 6:02 in the evening. She genuinely thought she was parking in the correct place. The parking company has already rejected an appeal based on the driver thought they could park there.
I will inform the company of my intentions before going to independent review and give them a chance to cancel the charge (which is more than they gave the driver). I will have no fear going to court on this one and inform the company of my preferred course of action. I very much doubt the company would take the risk. If the company wins, I will pay the fine for the driver, If the driver wins, the company will have to go into a process of investigation and repay lots of fines/costs/ etc, so a big risk for them. There is no guarantee who would win. I believe it lies in favour of the driver, but it's really about who has the most to lose if they don't. I'm happy to take that risk. 

I really believe in fairness. This charge in this particular instance is not fair. After this is done, in the name of fairness to other people who might have been issued with a charge under the same circumstances, I would contact the local council to make sure the company marking meet legal requirements and a street sign is put up. I would also request the parking company/council review ALL charges issued in that area to make sure they were issued correctly.

I have no problems with private parking rules but they are enforced by companies/people motivated by money and profits, so you must challenge them and ensure they are doing everything by the book and fair.


----------



## Sandyn (13 Mar 2021)

timothyedoran said:


> Rather than get all hot under the collar it might just be less stress to cough up the money and move on. Unless that is you are better at detaching your emotions from stuff like this


If it had been deliberate by the driver, then I would agree. your fault, so pay up ( I would have paid the fine for them), but as explained it was nor deliberate. The driver chose to park beside the company sign , because the same logo was on the permit. There was nothing to suggest the permit was not valid. An easy mistake to make after a long day at work, on a dark cold night


----------



## Sandyn (13 Mar 2021)

Glitch said:


> I think it changed in England and Wales in recent years. under certain circumstances they can go after the registered keeper.


In Scotland until the 15th Nov 2019, the keeper could not be held responsible, so a private company could do nothing, but the law was changed with the introduction of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, but the Act does not contain any real detail in some areas:

For example, what needs to be in a Notice. Several sections say:


> The notice contains such information as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations prescribe. (i.e. the notice will have to contain information, but we don't know what, yet)


Or for evidence which must be provided:


> The Scottish Ministers may by regulations prescribe evidence which must accompany a notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper. (again--They will have to provide evidence, but no idea what that has to be)


is not clear.....You couldn't make it up!!


----------



## Rorschach (13 Mar 2021)

Good luck, hope you will keep us updated. From what you have said it definitely sounds like you have a good case the parking company needed clearer signage.


----------



## Sandyn (13 Mar 2021)

Skydivermel said:


> always always appeal, (they will always come back to you with a load of bollo(ks saying appeal failed) however as soon as you appeal the fine must be held at the initial fee. i.e. £50 or £60.


That is very useful info. On a letter I got from the company, the specifically say if I appeal ( which has been done) the initial 'discount' charge of £60 will no longer apply and the charge will be £100.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Mar 2021)

Sandyn said:


> That is very useful info. On a letter I got from the company, the specifically say if I appeal ( which has been done) the initial 'discount' charge of £60 will no longer apply and the charge will be £100.



I don't know the rules for Scotland but in England I am pretty sure that's illegal. If they offer a discount for paying early they are not allowed to penalise you for appealing.


----------



## Sandyn (13 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> If they offer a discount for paying early they are not allowed to penalise you for appealing.


That would seem fair. I'm not sure what the law is in Scotland. There is so much conflicting information, even Citizens Advice Scotland has out of date information on it's site.


----------



## John Brown (13 Mar 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> 20 mph limits near schools here, children crossing between parked cars and drivers with their eyes on their speedos.


Only in Cornwall would people wear swimming trunks while driving.


----------



## bluenose (13 Mar 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Precisely. They are avoidable.


My sincere apologies Phil, in my haste I misread your wording, sorry


----------



## Sandyn (13 Mar 2021)

Glitch said:


> So Consumer Advice - Scotland are wrong then?


Consumer Advice Scotland says:
"There’s no law in Scotland that states the registered keeper of the car is automatically liable for a parking ticket. You are also under no obligation to disclose the details of the driver at the time."
unfortunately they are a bit misleading on the first statement. 

Transport (Scotland Act ) 2019 Part 8-Recovery of unpaid parking charges
Clause 95
Right in certain circumstances to recover from keeper of vehicle
(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

the clause then goes on to define the circumstances.

Also Citizens Advice Scotland claim:

"If you’re the registered keeper of the car, you may be sent a ticket. If you didn’t park the car at the time the ticket was issued and you don’t say who the driver was, there’s no law in Scotland that makes you, as the registered keeper, automatically liable for the ticket.

You *don’t* have to identify who it was that parked the car. It’s still possible that a parking company may try to make you pay the parking charge by taking you to court. You can defend any court action."

Under the 2019 law, you would probably lose in court (assuming it was a straight case), as the companies have been granted the power to recover the charges from the keeper of the vehicle. 

The terminology 'automatically liable for a parking ticket' is probably correct, but misleading. The company has to take you to court to recover the unpaid charge. They have been doing that successfully and with more confidence since the law was changed.


----------



## Droogs (13 Mar 2021)

Sandyn said:


> That is very useful info. On a letter I got from the company, the specifically say if I appeal ( which has been done) the initial 'discount' charge of £60 will no longer apply and the charge will be £100.


Pretty sure that would be classed as extortion in a court


----------



## Glitch (13 Mar 2021)

Why bother writing to the PPC? They've already rejected the appeal.
PPCs generally reject all appeals - it costs them a template letter and a postage stamp and some more punters will cave in and pay at that point.

Sounds like you have a very good case to take to the IAS. The PPC may back down rather than spend time and money fighting it. Include all the reasons you've mentioned but research the other angles that you might not be aware of. Pictures of all the signs and tickets, cite previous legal cases and IAS decisions (if you have access to them) Demand a copy of the contract between the PPC and the landowner to prove they are operating legally.
Make it look professional and comprehensive without waffle and the PPC is likely to back off. You'll need all this and more in the unlikely event it goes to court.

The PPC is probably making enough money not to change things. Obscurity and vagueness lets them snag more victims.

Do you know who the PPC is working for? Is it the property management company, a tenants association, the landowner?
Find out and write to them. They could probably get the PPC to cancel the parking charge and get them to change the parking permits to make them more flexible.

If there is a tenants association make them aware. A win at the IAS will add weight and help others.

Getting the council to improve the street signs is a double edged sword.

I got London Borough of Waltham Forest to stop issuing hundreds of ticket at a non-compliant bus lane. They took the camera down, fixed the signs and road markings. a couple of years later they put the camera back. Lo and behold the wife drove down the bus lane. Couldn't believe it. - banged to rights. I paid the fine. 

Here's a PPC ticket I challenged for a friend


----------



## Glitch (13 Mar 2021)

Sandyn said:


> Consumer Advice Scotland says:
> "There’s no law in Scotland that states the registered keeper of the car is automatically liable for a parking ticket. You are also under no obligation to disclose the details of the driver at the time."
> unfortunately they are a bit misleading on the first statement.
> 
> ...



Similar, if not the same as the changes made in England and Wales.

I had success with a PPC because of POFA non-compliance, amongst other reasons.

_You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You have also failed to give the invitation to keeper, 9 (2) (e) in the format prescribed by the Act._

No idea if his applies in Scotland or if your Parking Charge Notice falls into this category.


----------



## John Brown (13 Mar 2021)

John Brown said:


> Only in Cornwall would people wear swimming trunks while driving.


Serious question: Why would a 30 limit not require constant speedometer watching? What's the solution? No speed limits near schools?


----------



## Sandyn (13 Mar 2021)

Glitch said:


> Do you know who the PPC is working for? Is it the property management company, a tenants association, the landowner?
> Find out and write to them. They could probably get the PPC to cancel the parking charge and get them to change the parking permits to make them more flexible.
> 
> If there is a tenants association make them aware. A win at the IAS will add weight and help others.
> ...


There are two identical block of flats. Both blocks have street parking managed by the same company. Each block is managed by a different company. We have already asked the appropriate management company to have the charge dismissed, they said they couldn't. I don't believe that however. You quickly find that no one can do anything to help. Slopey shoulders..... My son is in the tenants association for one of the blocks. He is an owner and therefore will have a contract with the parking company via the management company somewhere in the background, but the contract is just for the parking round his block, but no idea what the limit of that is. There was never a problem with parking until the parking company took over.
The permit he has was issued because his dedicated parking space at the property is being used by NHBC to replace cladding. The parking company should have applied a bit of common sense and cancelled the ticket. It is very sneaky what they have done, which convinces me, they are just after the money. I assume the parking attendants get a bonus for each car the charge? 

The area is blocks of flats on a grid, there is total confusion about the road names. I have no idea what the roads are called, I can see why it is a double edged sword


----------



## Sandyn (13 Mar 2021)

Glitch said:


> I got London Borough of Waltham Forest to stop issuing hundreds of ticket at a non-compliant bus lane. They took the camera down, fixed the signs and road markings. a couple of years later they put the camera back. Lo and behold the wife drove down the bus lane. Couldn't believe it. - banged to rights. I paid the fine.
> 
> Here's a PPC ticket I challenged for a friend


What goes around comes around!!


----------



## paulrbarnard (13 Mar 2021)

John Brown said:


> Serious question: Why would a 30 limit not require constant speedometer watching? What's the solution? No speed limits near schools?


Because it is a limit, not a target. You should be driving comfortably below the limit not trying to sit exactly on it.


----------



## Glitch (13 Mar 2021)

Sandyn said:


> There are two identical block of flats. Both blocks have street parking managed by the same company. Each block is managed by a different company. We have already asked the appropriate management company to have the charge dismissed, they said they couldn't. I don't believe that however. You quickly find that no one can do anything to help. Slopey shoulders..... My son is in the tenants association for one of the blocks. He is an owner and therefore will have a contract with the parking company via the management company somewhere in the background, but the contract is just for the parking round his block, but no idea what the limit of that is. There was never a problem with parking until the parking company took over.
> The permit he has was issued because his dedicated parking space at the property is being used by NHBC to replace cladding. The parking company should have applied a bit of common sense and cancelled the ticket. It is very sneaky what they have done, which convinces me, they are just after the money. I assume the parking attendants get a bonus for each car the charge?
> 
> The area is blocks of flats on a grid, there is total confusion about the road names. I have no idea what the roads are called, I can see why it is a double edged sword



Sounds like you’re doing all the right things.

Separate contracts with the same PPC for the two blocks? I can see why that might add to the problem.
Each block will want to protect their own parking.

Let us know what happens!


----------



## John Brown (13 Mar 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> Because it is a limit, not a target. You should be driving comfortably below the limit not trying to sit exactly on it.


Sorry, I have no idea what relevance your comment has.
I was asking why 20 limits near schools are criticized in the grounds that drivers have to stare at their speedometers, instead of concentrating on not hitting schoolchildren, but apparently 30 limits don't provoke the same complaint.


----------



## DougT (13 Mar 2021)

artie said:


> Did you have much trouble sorting it out?


I received a fine so telephoned them and they checked my reg number a it was sorted. Good luck


----------



## KeithMcC (13 Mar 2021)

danst96 said:


> Yes in hindsight i should have argued with it more but at the time i was bogged down with other things and i kept forgetting i had the fine even. Oh well live and learn. The PCN guys are scum IMO, money making racket and nothing else.
> 
> Its along the same line as police camera vans. Privately contracted companies (not the police) out to make a quick buck only. They do not offer anything in terms of keeping speed down and they are often on high speed roads in concealed spots.


The “Safety Camera” vans and operators only seem to affect those that are actually speeding and therefore breaking the law. So there is a very simple answer!


----------



## paulrbarnard (13 Mar 2021)

John Brown said:


> Sorry, I have no idea what relevance your comment has.
> I was asking why 20 limits near schools are criticized in the grounds that drivers have to stare at their speedometers, instead of concentrating on not hitting schoolchildren, but apparently 30 limits don't provoke the same complaint.


My brain in filtered out the ‘not’ in your sentence about 30 limits. 
My point was that people shouldn’t need to be looking at their speedometer whatever the speed limit because they shouldn’t be driving in a way that they can exceed it. 
The problem is not 20 limits its peoples lack of respect for the safety of others which makes them ‘push’ the limit to satisfy their own selfish desire to not be delayed.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Mar 2021)

Keeping to a 20mph limit on a steep down hill stretch is not all that easy to do, keeping to 30 can be tricky in some circumstances as well. It's not the limit though that matters, it's the fact you have to keep to it or face a serious penalty that's the problem, you are going to be watching your speedo as no matter how confident you are in your judgement of speed you still need to check if you want to avoid the penalty.

I'd rather people watched out for hazards personally, a couple of mph higher or lower is less important than keeping your eyes on the road IMO.

Anyway we know it's nothing to do with safety and all about money, if it was about safety then cars would automatically limit their top to the speed limit on the road, the technology to do so is simple and has been available for years.


----------



## paulrbarnard (13 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Keeping to a 20mph limit on a steep down hill stretch is not all that easy to do, keeping to 30 can be tricky in some circumstances as well. It's not the limit though that matters, it's the fact you have to keep to it or face a serious penalty that's the problem, you are going to be watching your speedo as no matter how confident you are in your judgement of speed you still need to check if you want to avoid the penalty.
> 
> I'd rather people watched out for hazards personally, a couple of mph higher or lower is less important than keeping your eyes on the road IMO.
> 
> Anyway we know it's nothing to do with safety and all about money, if it was about safety then cars would automatically limit their top to the speed limit on the road, the technology to do so is simple and has been available for years.


I don’t agree that it’s not about safety. People make it about the money because their money means more to people than other people’s safety. No you can’t argue that if it was about safety they would fit limiters. That imposes a cost on everyone even those who don’t speed. Perhaps instead of a fine or speed awareness course those caught speeding should have mandatory speed limiters as they obviously can’t be trusted to limit themselves.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Mar 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> I don’t agree that it’s not about safety. People make it about the money because their money means more to people than other people’s safety. No you can’t argue that if it was about safety they would fit limiters. That imposes a cost on everyone even those who don’t speed. Perhaps instead of a fine or speed awareness course those caught speeding should have mandatory speed limiters as they obviously can’t be trusted to limit themselves.



If you don't speed, the limiter wouldn't have any effect on you would it?


----------



## paulrbarnard (13 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> If you don't speed, the limiter wouldn't have any effect on you would it?


Correct but it has a cost. Speed cameras only effect those that speed. That was my point. Limiters would financially impact everyone not just those who drive badly.


----------



## artie (13 Mar 2021)

I see we've digressed a little from parking to speeding, Of course parking can be dangerous but not so much as speeding. I know that speed doesn't cause accidents, I don't even see it as a contributing factor, but it certainly can increase the severity of injury/damage to those involved, so a prudent speed is advisable.

Twenty mile speed limit at a school is I suppose justifiable because of the unpredictability of children/youth.

But I find some 30 or 40 limits just seem to be there to make a trap for the vans.

Eighty or a 100 years ago the stopping distance for a motor vehicle was probably three times what it is now, streets were half as wide or less and the lights and wipers were abysmal . But with all the advances we have made the limit is still 30.

I often wonder why 30 was picked.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Mar 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> Correct but it has a cost. Speed cameras only effect those that speed. That was my point. Limiters would financially impact everyone not just those who drive badly.



What cost? The technology already exists in most cars already. The savings made by introducing them would be massive though, no prosecution and admin costs, no speed camera costs and the wages of the people who maintain them. And, if speed really does kill as some people are adamant it does, how do you quantify the costs of lives saved? We seem happy to spend millions on that at the moment. 

Speed cameras made sense 2 or 3 decades ago maybe, but if your goal is to reduce speeding and save lives then there are better ways to do it.
I'd be quite happy with a limiter on my car, in fact I would gladly pay to have one fitted. I never (intentionally) break the speed limit so it would only be a good thing for me.


----------



## TRITON (13 Mar 2021)

I have great sympathy for people who set fire to parking charge machines.


----------



## Sandyn (13 Mar 2021)

Speed limiters are coming


----------



## John Brown (13 Mar 2021)

artie said:


> I see we've digressed a little from parking to speeding, Of course parking can be dangerous but not so much as speeding. I know that speed doesn't cause accidents, I don't even see it as a contributing factor, but it certainly can increase the severity of injury/damage to those involved, so a prudent speed is advisable.
> 
> Twenty mile speed limit at a school is I suppose justifiable because of the unpredictability of children/youth.
> 
> ...


Actually, there are people campaigning to have the stopping distances in the Highway Code revised upwards, as apparently the average reaction time was originally underestimated. 
Personally, I think it's something you learn to pass the test. If you actually had to estimate the distance of the hazard in front of you, and then mentally look up a time, it'd be too late. 
It's all b*ll*cks anyway, obviously, as I see people tailgating at a few feet doing over 70.


----------



## paulrbarnard (13 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> What cost? The technology already exists in most cars already. The savings made by introducing them would be massive though, no prosecution and admin costs, no speed camera costs and the wages of the people who maintain them. And, if speed really does kill as some people are adamant it does, how do you quantify the costs of lives saved? We seem happy to spend millions on that at the moment.
> 
> Speed cameras made sense 2 or 3 decades ago maybe, but if your goal is to reduce speeding and save lives then there are better ways to do it.
> I'd be quite happy with a limiter on my car, in fact I would gladly pay to have one fitted. I never (intentionally) break the speed limit so it would only be a good thing for me.


I completely agree they are coming. Our car has one already. The issue is that 99.99% of cars on the road don’t. That’s why speed cameras are going to be with us for years yet. 
retro fitting a speed limiter would be very expensive. A speed warning, already available today, is a step in the right direction. 
I tend not to use the speed limiter unless I’m in an area with long stretches or lots of changes in speed limit but the warning is always on and absolutely fantastic if you do miss seeing the limit sign.


----------



## Skydivermel (13 Mar 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> I completely agree they are coming. Our car has one already. The issue is that 99.99% of cars on the road don’t. That’s why speed cameras are going to be with us for years yet.
> retro fitting a speed limiter would be very expensive. A speed warning, already available today, is a step in the right direction.
> I tend not to use the speed limiter unless I’m in an area with long stretches or lots of changes in speed limit but the warning is always on and absolutely fantastic if you do miss seeing the limit sign.



I cant see that for at least the next 10 years. In 2018 £120M was raised from speeding tickets alone. If this revenue is removed they'll have to find another way of raising this money. On the other hand revenue saved by not having so many accidents will surely outweigh the fines.


----------



## paulrbarnard (13 Mar 2021)

Skydivermel said:


> I cant see that for at least the next 10 years. In 2018 £120M was raised from speeding tickets alone. If this revenue is removed they'll have to find another way of raising this money. On the other hand revenue saved by not having so many accidents will surely outweigh the fines.


The income from speeding tickets is insignificant compared to the £28B raised from fuel duty. An increase of 0.04p per litre (currently at 58ish p) would completely offset it. Despite what people like to call speed cameras they are not a tax on motorists or a cash cow.


----------



## danst96 (13 Mar 2021)

[/QUOTE]


KeithMcC said:


> The “Safety Camera” vans and operators only seem to affect those that are actually speeding and therefore breaking the law. So there is a very simple answer!


Not necessarily, you have drivers doing well within the speed limit jamming on at the sight of them causing near misses or in some worst case scenarios accidents. Safety cameras yeh right


----------



## Reginald (14 Mar 2021)

Sandyn said:


> Update to my original question.
> In the private parking company's process. I have now passed the point where not knowing who the driver was, is an advantage to me, so I now know, however it is irrelevant.
> I have investigated what has happened looked at the signs/street marking and found that the street parking company's signs and the permit they issued is not clear. As I said in an earlier post, there is an area controlled by the company. This covers two parallel streets, Street A and Street B. if you have a permit for Street A, it seems you can't park on Street B and vice versa. The permit the car was displaying gives no indication that it is for Street A only. The parking company's signs do not differentiate which area they cover, i.e. this is the sign for street A and this is the sign for street B.
> 
> ...


My daughter was fined by a private parking company, they issued the ticket in the dark and took several pictures with flash of my daughters car.
Upon investigation in the daylight there was one signe Which measured 250x250mm with the text so small that even in daylight it was not possible to read it without the aid of binoculars as it was 3meteres up on a building the appeal was rejected of course. Just legalised piracy.


----------



## John Brown (14 Mar 2021)

I agree that a lot of private car parks are little better than pirates. I believe that NCP, way back, took over bomb sites that they didn't own.
Speeding, on the other hand, is voluntary.


----------



## NickWelford (14 Mar 2021)

John Brown said:


> Serious question: Why would a 30 limit not require constant speedometer watching? What's the solution? No speed limits near schools?


The solution is to suspend vehicle movements on roads containing schools for a period twice a day.


----------



## John Brown (14 Mar 2021)

NickWelford said:


> The solution is to suspend vehicle movements on roads containing schools for a period twice a day.


Going to upset a lot of Range Rover driving parents.


----------



## Stevekane (14 Mar 2021)

I wish someone would invent a gadget that started to beep if you started to exceed the speed limit, perhaps sat nav technology controlled for changing limits, that way you could concentrate on your driving. Although Ive not been on one, people I know who have gone on the police speed awareness course as an alternative to a fine have all said that the people attending were older seemingly sensible drivers who were speeding through inattention.
Steve.


----------



## niemeyjt (14 Mar 2021)

My father's Toyota has cameras to recognise speed limits and other electronic gizmos. I hope the technology improves significantly before it is linked to a speed limiter - I have travelled miles with the "you're speeding" indicator going because the camera either has spotted a sign on a sliproad and assumed it applied to the main road - or failed to spot an increased / end of restriction sign.


----------



## paulrbarnard (14 Mar 2021)

Stevekane said:


> I wish someone would invent a gadget that started to beep if you started to exceed the speed limit, perhaps sat nav technology controlled for changing limits, that way you could concentrate on your driving. Although Ive not been on one, people I know who have gone on the police speed awareness course as an alternative to a fine have all said that the people attending were older seemingly sensible drivers who were speeding through inattention.
> Steve.


Those exist. Our car has it built in and some newer GPS devices have the function.


----------



## paulrbarnard (14 Mar 2021)

niemeyjt said:


> My father's Toyota has cameras to recognise speed limits and other electronic gizmos. I hope the technology improves significantly before it is linked to a speed limiter - I have travelled miles with the "you're speeding" indicator going because the camera either has spotted a sign on a sliproad and assumed it applied to the main road - or failed to spot an increased / end of restriction sign.


The one in our Volvo is pretty good. It used both ADAS cameras and map data. It occasionally gets fooled by a twisted sign on a side road but corrects itself after a few hundred meters. This technology will get very much better in a couple of years with the requirements of HAD driving the technology.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Mar 2021)

Stevekane said:


> I wish someone would invent a gadget that started to beep if you started to exceed the speed limit, perhaps sat nav technology controlled for changing limits, that way you could concentrate on your driving. Although Ive not been on one, people I know who have gone on the police speed awareness course as an alternative to a fine have all said that the people attending were older seemingly sensible drivers who were speeding through inattention.
> Steve.



My sat nav does it. Pretty accurate on the speed limits though I wouldn't trust it 100% if there was a camera coming but it certainly helps when I am travelling on roads I have never been on before.

EDIT: I have also found the speedo on the Sat Nav to be very good and more accurate than the speedo on the dash which reads almost 10% too low. I tend to use the Sat Nav speedo when driving (though go a bit lower on cameras) as it is much easier to glance to the side to see the speed than look down at the dash.


----------



## Glitch (14 Mar 2021)

@Sandyn 

You might want to have a look at this

Transport Scotland Act 2019 (on Fightback Forum)


----------



## artie (14 Mar 2021)

Stevekane said:


> I wish someone would invent a gadget that started to beep if you started to exceed the speed limit, perhaps sat nav technology controlled for changing limits, that way you could concentrate on your driving. Although Ive not been on one, people I know who have gone on the police speed awareness course as an alternative to a fine have all said that the people attending were older seemingly sensible drivers who were speeding through inattention.
> Steve.


My sat nav, which , by the way is years old, tells me when I exceed the speed limit by turning my speed indicator red


----------



## Blackswanwood (14 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> My sat nav does it. Pretty accurate on the speed limits though I wouldn't trust it 100% if there was a camera coming but it certainly helps when I am travelling on roads I have never been on before.
> 
> EDIT: I have also found the speedo on the Sat Nav to be very good and more accurate than the speedo on the dash which reads almost 10% too low. I tend to use the Sat Nav speedo when driving (though go a bit lower on cameras) as it is much easier to glance to the side to see the speed than look down at the dash.


Just wondered how you have determined which one is accurate?


----------



## Rorschach (14 Mar 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> Just wondered how you have determined which one is accurate?



Locally we have a couple of those "watch your speed" signs that shows your speed as you go past and there are also a couple when you travel across Dartmoor as well. Since I pass them all quite frequently I have spotted the discrepancy between the speed on the signs compared to the speed on my speedo. Because I am a sad git I decided to do the same test using the sat nav, keeping my speed as steady as I could I got my partner (yes they thought it was sad as well) to watch the speed on the sign while I checked the speedo and the sat nav. The speedo was almost 10% too low (depends on speed, more inaccurate the faster you go) and the sat nav was either the same speed as the sign showed or +/- 1 MPH of the sign. This was the same across 4 different speed signs, 1 set for 20mph, 1 for 30mph and 2 for 40mph. So while it is far from scientific I thought it was a pretty good way to test.


----------



## mikej460 (14 Mar 2021)

Sandyn said:


> There are two identical block of flats. Both blocks have street parking managed by the same company. Each block is managed by a different company. We have already asked the appropriate management company to have the charge dismissed, they said they couldn't. I don't believe that however. You quickly find that no one can do anything to help. Slopey shoulders..... My son is in the tenants association for one of the blocks. He is an owner and therefore will have a contract with the parking company via the management company somewhere in the background, but the contract is just for the parking round his block, but no idea what the limit of that is. There was never a problem with parking until the parking company took over.
> The permit he has was issued because his dedicated parking space at the property is being used by NHBC to replace cladding. The parking company should have applied a bit of common sense and cancelled the ticket. It is very sneaky what they have done, which convinces me, they are just after the money. I assume the parking attendants get a bonus for each car the charge?
> 
> The area is blocks of flats on a grid, there is total confusion about the road names. I have no idea what the roads are called, I can see why it is a double edged sword


I would write and refuse to pay. I think the issue of who was driving is irrelevant as the fine is in your name. Simply stick to the fact that a space wasn't available etc. as outlined above and refuse to pay, then stick to your guns as they issue reminders. It would cost them too much to take you to court. I did this once when I was fined by a private firm after I visited a service station on the M42 twice in one day (going to work then returning home). The ticket said I had been parked there all day so I explained the two visits, refused to pay and ignored all reminders - it eventually went away.


----------



## Glitch (14 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Locally we have a couple of those "watch your speed" signs that shows your speed as you go past and there are also a couple when you travel across Dartmoor as well. Since I pass them all quite frequently I have spotted the discrepancy between the speed on the signs compared to the speed on my speedo. Because I am a sad git I decided to do the same test using the sat nav, keeping my speed as steady as I could I got my partner (yes they thought it was sad as well) to watch the speed on the sign while I checked the speedo and the sat nav. The speedo was almost 10% too low (depends on speed, more inaccurate the faster you go) and the sat nav was either the same speed as the sign showed or +/- 1 MPH of the sign. This was the same across 4 different speed signs, 1 set for 20mph, 1 for 30mph and 2 for 40mph. So while it is far from scientific I thought it was a pretty good way to test.


Apparently a car speedo must not read slower than true speed but it can read over by up to 10% plus 6.25mph

Most speed cameras are set to prescribed speed limit +10% +2mph
That’s 79mph in a 70mph limit. Plus your speedometer may be reading over by quite a bit. Your Speedo might read 79mph but your true speed could be 65! (If my maths is right)

It’s still illegal to exceed the limit even by 1mph so a true speed of 71 could get you a ticket.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Mar 2021)

Glitch said:


> Apparently a car speedo must not read slower than true speed but it can read over by up to 10% plus 6.25mph
> 
> Most speed cameras are set to prescribed speed limit +10% +2mph
> That’s 79mph in a 70mph limit. Plus your speedometer may be reading over by quite a bit. Your Speedo might read 79mph but your true speed could be 65! (If my maths is right)
> ...



What you have said is very similar to what I have heard in the past from a variety of sources.

When my Speedo reads 70 (it's a dial type so hard to be exact) my Sat Nav is usually saying 63-64, to get the Sat Nav to read 70 the speedo has to be close to touching 80. Considering I normally drive on the motorway at around 65 (speedo) my "real" speed is probably only just 60.


----------



## Sandyn (14 Mar 2021)

Glitch said:


> You might want to have a look at this
> 
> Transport Scotland Act 2019 (on Fightback Forum)


brilliant!! thank you! This is where it all gets very confusing. When you look at the act it received Royal Assent, which makes it active, but it seems the part about recovery of parking charges from the keeper is not in force yet    So they can't proceed with anything. I still can fall back on the misleading signage, which is easy to show with three pictures. Two parking signs and one permit. Ask the court which is the valid area for the permit...There is no way of telling.


----------



## Blackswanwood (14 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> What you have said is very similar to what I have heard in the past from a variety of sources.
> 
> When my Speedo reads 70 (it's a dial type so hard to be exact) my Sat Nav is usually saying 63-64, to get the Sat Nav to read 70 the speedo has to be close to touching 80. Considering I normally drive on the motorway at around 65 (speedo) my "real" speed is probably only just 60.



I am pretty sure it’s based on ACPO guidelines that the 10% + 2mph is adopted but London and (I think) Lancashire use + 3 mph. One of the motoring magazines did a FOI and collated what all the different police forces use.

Edit - found it









UK speed camera tolerances revealed | Auto Express


We investigate the internet rumors surrounding UK speed camera tolerances and whether your car speedo can be trusted




www.autoexpress.co.uk


----------



## bansobaby (14 Mar 2021)

The actual facts on speedometer accuracy and the law seem to be shrouded in mystery. The _change _in accuracy of a speedo is dependent on tyre wear. Some tyres have as much as 25 or 30 mm of usable tread so the percentage of the diameter is significant. Indeed some vehicles allow you to recalibrate the satnav when you have new tyres fitted. And before you ask, it is not to over ride the satellite bit, but the bit where the satnav calculates position based on the distance travelled and steering inputs when the satellites are not available. But it doesn’t recalibrate the speedo itself....
Getting back to the speeding law, I was always under the impression that there was a 10% allowance. I have had this refuted by ex traffic officers who ran the only speed awareness course that I have attended, they said it wasn’t true. (I was attending due to receiving a ticket for 34 mph in a 30 limit, no complaints, I was speeding.)
I have also read somewhere that under a freedom of information request it appeared that there have not been any successful speeding prosecutions for speeds of less than 10% over the prevailing limit. 
I freely admit that I cannot reproduce that information, so would be interested to know if anyone has better knowledge/ experience.
With regards to parking fines, I have no problem with paying for it, but I think some of the companies involved really take the proverbial.
There is only one pay and display car park that I use in any regular way, and I always offer my ticket to anyone entering the car park as I leave. Apparently this is illegal. Why? A parking space for a given period has been paid for......


----------



## Rorschach (14 Mar 2021)

bansobaby said:


> There is only one pay and display car park that I use in any regular way, and I always offer my ticket to anyone entering the car park as I leave. Apparently this is illegal. Why? A parking space for a given period has been paid for......



It's unlikely to be illegal, but contravenes the terms and conditions of parking instead. I also used to do this but most of our car parks require a number plate to be entered when buying the ticket now so you can't do it.


----------



## paulrbarnard (14 Mar 2021)

bansobaby said:


> The actual facts on speedometer accuracy and the law seem to be shrouded in mystery. The _change _in accuracy of a speedo is dependent on tyre wear. Some tyres have as much as 25 or 30 mm of usable tread so the percentage of the diameter is significant. Indeed some vehicles allow you to recalibrate the satnav when you have new tyres fitted. And before you ask, it is not to over ride the satellite bit, but the bit where the satnav calculates position based on the distance travelled and steering inputs when the satellites are not available. But it doesn’t recalibrate the speedo itself....
> Getting back to the speeding law, I was always under the impression that there was a 10% allowance. I have had this refuted by ex traffic officers who ran the only speed awareness course that I have attended, they said it wasn’t true. (I was attending due to receiving a ticket for 34 mph in a 30 limit, no complaints, I was speeding.)
> I have also read somewhere that under a freedom of information request it appeared that there have not been any successful speeding prosecutions for speeds of less than 10% over the prevailing limit.
> I freely admit that I cannot reproduce that information, so would be interested to know if anyone has better knowledge/ experience.
> ...


Slightly inaccurate. GNSS units are not recalibrated for tire wear. GNSS does not do dead reckoning. In a complex ASAS system GNSS is used as one input to a dead reckoning system that uses additional inputs like wheel ticks, steering actuators and inertial sensors. These inputs can be fused to calculate a more accurate relative trajectory of the vehicle. Of all these inputs the wheel ticks are the only ones impacted by tire wear, or indeed temperature.


----------



## bansobaby (14 Mar 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> Slightly inaccurate. GNSS units are not recalibrated for tire wear. GNSS does not do dead reckoning. In a complex ASAS system GNSS is used as one input to a dead reckoning system that uses additional inputs like wheel ticks, steering actuators and inertial sensors. These inputs can be fused to calculate a more accurate relative trajectory of the vehicle. Of all these inputs the wheel ticks are the only ones impacted by tire wear, or indeed temperature.


I’m pretty sure that’s what I said.......I specifically pointed out that it did not recalibrate the satellitey thingy bit


----------



## bansobaby (14 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> It's unlikely to be illegal, but contravenes the terms and conditions of parking instead. I also used to do this but most of our car parks require a number plate to be entered when buying the ticket now so you can't do it.


My mistake, I should not have used the word ‘illegal’ but perhaps the phrase ‘against their rules’.......


----------



## bansobaby (14 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> It's unlikely to be illegal, but contravenes the terms and conditions of parking instead. I also used to do this but most of our car parks require a number plate to be entered when buying the ticket now so you can't do it.



And further, what is the justification for being required to enter your registration, other than the desire to be paid more than once for the same entity.
That to me is further cause to use the justifiable recompense argument when it comes to ridiculous fines, sorry, charges.....


----------



## Rorschach (14 Mar 2021)

bansobaby said:


> And further, what is the justification for being required to enter your registration, other than the desire to be paid more than once for the same entity.
> That to me is further cause to use the justifiable recompense argument when it comes to ridiculous fines, sorry, charges.....



Yep, just money grabbing really.


----------



## Glitch (14 Mar 2021)

bansobaby said:


> The actual facts on speedometer accuracy and the law seem to be shrouded in mystery. The _change _in accuracy of a speedo is dependent on tyre wear. Some tyres have as much as 25 or 30 mm of usable tread so the percentage of the diameter is significant. Indeed some vehicles allow you to recalibrate the satnav when you have new tyres fitted. And before you ask, it is not to over ride the satellite bit, but the bit where the satnav calculates position based on the distance travelled and steering inputs when the satellites are not available. But it doesn’t recalibrate the speedo itself....
> Getting back to the speeding law, I was always under the impression that there was a 10% allowance. I have had this refuted by ex traffic officers who ran the only speed awareness course that I have attended, they said it wasn’t true. (I was attending due to receiving a ticket for 34 mph in a 30 limit, no complaints, I was speeding.)
> I have also read somewhere that under a freedom of information request it appeared that there have not been any successful speeding prosecutions for speeds of less than 10% over the prevailing limit.
> I freely admit that I cannot reproduce that information, so would be interested to know if anyone has better knowledge/ experience.
> ...



Surely tyre circumference has no bearing on a satnav working out your speed and distance?
Google Maps certainly doesn’t use any inputs from the vehicle.

It will affect your speedometer slightly but not as much as putting different size wheels or tyres on.

Transferring your parking ticket is against the terms and conditions of the contract you enter when you purchase the ticket. But few people read them.
Most car parks have resorted to Ringo or PayByPhone or having to punch your VRM into the ticket machine to stop ticket transfers. I always used to give mine away too.


----------



## bansobaby (14 Mar 2021)

Glitch said:


> Surely tyre circumference has no bearing on a satnav working out your speed and distance?
> Google Maps certainly doesn’t use any inputs from the vehicle.
> 
> It will affect your speedometer slightly but not as much as putting different size wheels or tyres on.
> ...



I did go to the trouble in the original post of pointing out the reason for the tyre recalibration, specifically that it is not related to the ‘satellite’ part of the navigation system, but rather the information that is available to it when satellite info is not, namely direction through steering input and distance travelled based on wheel rotation count. This last point being dependent on tyre wear.


----------



## artie (14 Mar 2021)

In a previous live I ran a taxi company in a small town.

We rarely drove within the speed limit but the local cops were ok.

Traffic branch however were not. I remember one telling me how far we could push it.

He said since car speedometers by law can have a 10% deviation then you will never find yourself in court unless you exceed the limit by more than 10%.

He said on top of that we usually allow another 2 mph grace so you will not get booked unless you do 69 in a 60 etc.

This was back before fixed penalties


----------



## Sandyn (14 Mar 2021)

artie said:


> He said since car speedometers by law can have a 10% deviation then you will never find yourself in court unless you exceed the limit by more than 10%.
> 
> He said on top of that we usually allow another 2 mph grace so you will not get booked unless you do 69 in a 60 etc.




not sure if this is accurate, but my understanding is 10%+2mph


----------



## marcros (14 Mar 2021)

speeding is speeding. 1mph over is speeding and is against the law. 

the charging guidelines do allow some discretion, and these vary by area. my local ones are here Questions | West Yorkshire Police . this seems to be 10% + 2mph in West Yorkshire. 

whatever the speedo says is largely irrelevant but the manufacturers need a standard to work to. I am certain that if they just had a guess at it there would be endless complaints from users receiving speeding tickets.

I dont know, but I would expect that on the motorway in dry conditions, the police are not that interested in the traffic at 80mph, they will look for the car that is travelling significantly faster than the rest, or weaving between lanes.


----------



## MikeJhn (15 Mar 2021)

artie said:


> My sat nav, which , by the way is years old, tells me when I exceed the speed limit by turning my speed indicator red


My car has a limit button, when the speed you wish to maintain is reached that speed is a maximum just gently pushing the accelerator has no effect, flooring the throttle lets you accelerate and obviously if you back off the speed decays, more effective than flashing the speedo for an inattentive driver, in economy mode there is no engine braking as the transmission is disengaged from the engine to save fuel.


----------



## Suffolk Brian (15 Mar 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> Just wondered how you have determined which one is accurate?


Car speedo are actually designed to read a bit high. Will show about 33 when you are going 30 mph. You can trust your satnav.


----------



## Doodahdebs (15 Mar 2021)

Stevekane said:


> I wish someone would invent a gadget that started to beep if you started to exceed the speed limit, perhaps sat nav technology controlled for changing limits, that way you could concentrate on your driving. Although Ive not been on one, people I know who have gone on the police speed awareness course as an alternative to a fine have all said that the people attending were older seemingly sensible drivers who were speeding through inattention.
> Steve.


I have a speedometer app on my phone that you can set to beep at you when you exceed the limit. something like that might be worth looking at.


----------



## Glitch (15 Mar 2021)

marcros said:


> speeding is speeding. 1mph over is speeding and is against the law.
> 
> the charging guidelines do allow some discretion, and these vary by area. my local ones are here Questions | West Yorkshire Police . this seems to be 10% + 2mph in West Yorkshire.
> 
> ...



Similarly, the legal limit for drink driving is 35mg per 100ml of breath but they only charge you if it's 40mg or above.


----------



## Daniel2 (15 Mar 2021)

If you drive by the car's speedo, I think you'll always be safely
within the limit.


----------



## Robbo60 (15 Mar 2021)

Stevekane said:


> I wish someone would invent a gadget that started to beep if you started to exceed the speed limit, perhaps sat nav technology controlled for changing limits, that way you could concentrate on your driving. Although Ive not been on one, people I know who have gone on the police speed awareness course as an alternative to a fine have all said that the people attending were older seemingly sensible drivers who were speeding through inattention.
> Steve.


I've been on a few speed awareness courses over the years and always 90% of attendees were 40yrs+, mostly being done in 30 and 40MPH areas


----------



## Robbo60 (15 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Locally we have a couple of those "watch your speed" signs that shows your speed as you go past and there are also a couple when you travel across Dartmoor as well. Since I pass them all quite frequently I have spotted the discrepancy between the speed on the signs compared to the speed on my speedo. Because I am a sad git I decided to do the same test using the sat nav, keeping my speed as steady as I could I got my partner (yes they thought it was sad as well) to watch the speed on the sign while I checked the speedo and the sat nav. The speedo was almost 10% too low (depends on speed, more inaccurate the faster you go) and the sat nav was either the same speed as the sign showed or +/- 1 MPH of the sign. This was the same across 4 different speed signs, 1 set for 20mph, 1 for 30mph and 2 for 40mph. So while it is far from scientific I thought it was a pretty good way to test.


I have found, using the same method, and comparing to sat nav that the speedos in the last few cars I have owned have all been 3mph out, not a %age. I was also told at a speed awareness course that you will never be fined if exceeding the speed limit by less than 10%. A Traffic officer told me (a few years ago) that Home Office guidelines were 10% + 2mph, but only guidelines. Another thing I learned on a SA course was the old fashioned square Matrix speed limit signs in the central reservation on a motorway are only advisory as they don't have the red circle around then. The newer overhead ones do.


----------



## Robbo60 (15 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> What you have said is very similar to what I have heard in the past from a variety of sources.
> 
> When my Speedo reads 70 (it's a dial type so hard to be exact) my Sat Nav is usually saying 63-64, to get the Sat Nav to read 70 the speedo has to be close to touching 80. Considering I normally drive on the motorway at around 65 (speedo) my "real" speed is probably only just 60.


60 on a motorway? Do you sit in the middle lane as well??


----------



## Lons (15 Mar 2021)

bansobaby said:


> Some tyres have as much as 25 or 30 mm of usable tread so the percentage of the diameter is significant.



What do you mean by that? A standard car tyre even winter tyres or all season as I have on mine have a maximum of around 8mm depth of tread from new and are changed at around 2 - 3 mm so differences are insignificant, the only tyres I can imagine with 30mm depth would be HGV, agricultural or special use. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you've written?

Road sign recognition software in cars is a double edged sword, mine pings up every sign and blocks out the digital readout for probably 10 seconds so can be quite distracting though I still keep it enabled. No sympathy for anyone speeding especially in built up areas or with cameras sited in these spots but sadly as previously mentioned there are numerous examples where fixed and mobile cameras are positioned where safety factors are not a prime justification.

It's a fact that there are many drivers brake when they reach the camera, often sharply and often when they are already below the limit, it's also pretty clear that human nature causes a majority of drivers to look at their speedo as they pass, just to be sure they are OK and there is a cheap, simple way to make the latter safer by fitting every car with a head up display, the technology is there it costs hardly anything but the manufacturers want £500 to spec it. I fitted an aftermarket HUD to my motorhome because the position and colour of the dials make it very hard to read, it's plugged into the OBD port but is dual function and can work just as well by satelite, it's compact and I can read a digital speed and other info in my eyeline in a safe place bottom corner of the screen, no need to look down, pings at set speed if you want.* The cost to buy this unit was a huge £21* and fitting took me 15 minutes most of which was tucking a thin wire out of the way.

It's the same with reversing cameras, they're a safety feature that should be on every car and you can buy a whole kit including screen for well under £20, I've fitted 2 for family members and it's pretty simple.


----------



## Glitch (15 Mar 2021)

A tyre is never a true circle. If it was there would be little or no grip.
The weight of the vehicle compresses it. 
Weight inside the vehicle and tyre pressure make a difference too.
I think that's why speedometers can read quite a bit higher than true speed but are not allowed to read under. It has to compensate for the variables


----------



## Rorschach (15 Mar 2021)

Robbo60 said:


> 60 on a motorway? Do you sit in the middle lane as well??



Like I said, approx 65 on the speedo but in reality it is probably closer to 60. My car is underpowered and fuel efficiency drops off very quickly if I try and exceed 65 (speedo). At this speed I find I am quite easily over taking slower moving traffic on the inside lane such as Lorries. Of course I move into the inside lane when safe and sensible to do so. I do spend a fair amount of time in the middle lane as you would expect to do if overtaking traffic on the inside lane but it will depend on the volume of traffic at the time. I follow the highway code of course but I do think this whole middle lane hogging things does get a bit overblown, usually by drivers that are regularly and consistently speeding on the motorway. If a car is in the middle lane when there is a decent volume of traffic in the inside lane that they are overtaking, I don't have a problem with them sitting there when there is a 3rd lane available for other traffic to overtake them. Constantly weaving in and out of the inside lane into small gaps between lorries just to pull out again seconds later seems far more dangerous in my mind.


----------



## paulrbarnard (15 Mar 2021)

Lons said:


> What do you mean by that? A standard car tyre even winter tyres or all season as I have on mine have a maximum of around 8mm depth of tread from new and are changed at around 2 - 3 mm so differences are insignificant, the only tyres I can imagine with 30mm depth would be HGV, agricultural or special use. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you've written?
> 
> Road sign recognition software in cars is a double edged sword, mine pings up every sign and blocks out the digital readout for probably 10 seconds so can be quite distracting though I still keep it enabled. No sympathy for anyone speeding especially in built up areas or with cameras sited in these spots but sadly as previously mentioned there are numerous examples where fixed and mobile cameras are positioned where safety factors are not a prime justification.
> 
> ...


Take a look at BF Goodrich Mud Terrains, which I have in my car. They have close to 30mm.


----------



## Lons (15 Mar 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> Take a look at BF Goodrich Mud Terrains, which I have in my car. They have close to 30mm.


Specialist tyre really though Paul certainly must be a very small % of tyres in normal day use.


----------



## paulrbarnard (15 Mar 2021)

Lons said:


> Specialist tyre really though Paul certainly must be a very small % of tyres in normal day use.


The only type of tire that has been on my landrover for the last 15 years, so depends on your perspective really. For me they are perfect normal daily drivers.


----------



## Rorschach (15 Mar 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> Take a look at BF Goodrich Mud Terrains, which I have in my car. They have close to 30mm.



What do you drive? That doesn't sound like a common use tyre.

EDIT: Ah Land Rover.


----------



## paulrbarnard (15 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> What do you drive? That doesn't sound like a common use tyre.


Landrover defender 110 is my car and Volvo XC40 is my wife’s, in case the discussions on speed limiters etc confuse . The 20 year old defender doesn’t have much in the way of advanced electronics.


----------



## Lons (16 Mar 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> The only type of tire that has been on my landrover for the last 15 years, so depends on your perspective really. For me they are perfect normal daily drivers.


Yebbut they are off road mud tyres Paul I bet your wife's XC40 has normal tyre treads of not more than 8mm.
Horses for courses and must suit what you do or you wouldn't put them on but definitely not for my AWD SUV and I'd be more than a little surprised if MB recommended them.  I run Vredestein all seasons on 20" rims which suit my car perfectly, give decent grip and good life.


----------



## belongumdave (16 Mar 2021)

Doodahdebs said:


> I have a speedometer app on my phone that you can set to beep at you when you exceed the limit. something like that might be worth looking at.


A lot of high end cars do have an adjustable limit, which will sound a 'beep', this is over and above, the cruise control.


----------



## Fergie 307 (16 Mar 2021)

artie said:


> I see we've digressed a little from parking to speeding, Of course parking can be dangerous but not so much as speeding. I know that speed doesn't cause accidents, I don't even see it as a contributing factor, but it certainly can increase the severity of injury/damage to those involved, so a prudent speed is advisable.
> 
> Twenty mile speed limit at a school is I suppose justifiable because of the unpredictability of children/youth.
> 
> ...


You haven't been paying attention to all the advertising around this. In a collision at 30 the majority of pedestrians will survive. At 40 most will die, simple really.


----------



## Fergie 307 (16 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> What cost? The technology already exists in most cars already. The savings made by introducing them would be massive though, no prosecution and admin costs, no speed camera costs and the wages of the people who maintain them. And, if speed really does kill as some people are adamant it does, how do you quantify the costs of lives saved? We seem happy to spend millions on that at the moment.
> 
> Speed cameras made sense 2 or 3 decades ago maybe, but if your goal is to reduce speeding and save lives then there are better ways to do it.
> I'd be quite happy with a limiter on my car, in fact I would gladly pay to have one fitted. I never (intentionally) break the speed limit so it would only be a good thing for me.


Absolutely. Most cars now have say nav, so know the speed limit in any given location, and have cruise control, so have the ability to control the vehicles speed. All that would be required is a bit of software to integrate the two, the cost per vehicle would be pennies.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Mar 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> You haven't been paying attention to all the advertising around this. In a collision at 30 the majority of pedestrians will survive. At 40 most will die, simple really.



That isn't why we have a 30mph limit though, the number was just picked as being suitable, statistics about deaths came later and would have likely picked 20mph if injures and deaths were the prime factor.


----------



## artie (16 Mar 2021)

I reckon it won't matter soon as the car will be driverless and only take us where we are allowed to go at a prudent speed


----------



## Blackswanwood (16 Mar 2021)

artie said:


> I reckon it won't matter soon as the car will be driverless and only take us where we are allowed to go at a prudent speed


I agree. It's a big question for insurance companies as to what it will mean for them as the liability won't sit with the driver in an accident and instead will be with the manufacturer.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Mar 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> I agree. It's a big question for insurance companies as to what it will mean for them as the liability won't sit with the driver in an accident and instead will be with the manufacturer.



It's a temporary issue and will be resolved as driverless cars become more common and accidents become virtually non-existent. If you have 20 million driverless cars on the road and you only get 1 fatal accident every year then each "car" need only contribute £1 extra per year and there would be a £20 million pot to cover that accident. 

Insurance is minor issue amongst that many that driverless cars will bring up.


----------



## Blackswanwood (16 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> It's a temporary issue and will be resolved as driverless cars become more common and accidents become virtually non-existent. If you have 20 million driverless cars on the road and you only get 1 fatal accident every year then each "car" need only contribute £1 extra per year and there would be a £20 million pot to cover that accident.
> 
> Insurance is minor issue amongst that many that driverless cars will bring up.


Thanks - I'll tell them to stop worrying  I agree with your general point but it's actually a lot more complicated than it seems at first. 

I'm not sure I can see any real negative issues relating to driverless cars ... apart from having been lucky enough to sit in one being tested it's a most disconcerting experience.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Mar 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> Thanks - I'll tell them to stop worrying  I agree with your general point but it's actually a lot more complicated than it seems at first.
> 
> I'm not sure I can see any real negative issues relating to driverless cars ... apart from having been lucky enough to sit in one being tested it's a most disconcerting experience.



Lol, it is a legitimate worry for now, and will be trouble during the transfer period but it won't be a long term problem and certainly won't stop the progression to driverless, but if not handled well it could slow things down.

I don't foresee many negative issues and in general I am very much pro-driverless cars. But I like to think I am a realist and I am sure there will be troubles and probably a very messy crossover. Like so many problems in society I think the biggest problem will be caused by one of the most simple societal problems, poverty and inequality.


----------



## Nigel Burden (16 Mar 2021)

Don't think that all liability will eventually fall on manufacturers when cars become driverless. The onus will be on the one sat in the driving seat to take action and over-ride the system if it fails.

Nigel.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Mar 2021)

Nigel Burden said:


> Don't think that all liability will eventually fall on manufacturers when cars become driverless. The onus will be on the one sat in the driving seat to take action and over-ride the system if it fails.
> 
> Nigel.



Only in the interim period. It's almost certain the driverless cars won't have any controls for the passengers to use.


----------



## Nigel Burden (16 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> That isn't why we have a 30mph limit though, the number was just picked as being suitable, statistics about deaths came later and would have likely picked 20mph if injures and deaths were the prime factor.



I read a few years ago in one of my driving instructor magazines that there was some evidence that in 20 mph limits drivers can become less aware and pedestrians are less likely to look properly. There is also evidence that a child under the age of seven finds it difficult to notice a vehicles movement under 22 mph and adults under 7 mph. As I no longer have the article I can not give a link to it, but I am presuming that the speeds at which pedestrians notice movement are for someone who takes a cursory glance.

Nigel.


----------



## Nigel Burden (16 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Only in the interim period. It's almost certain the driverless cars won't have any controls for the passengers to use.



I hope that doesn't happen. As one who has enjoyed driving over the years, becoming a qualified observer for the Institute of Advanced Drivers, I think that it would be a retrograde step. I know all the safety systems act far quicker than a human, but there needs to be a last line of defence in the unlikely event of a system failure.

Nigel.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Mar 2021)

Nigel Burden said:


> I hope that doesn't happen. As one who has enjoyed driving over the years, becoming a qualified observer for the Institute of Advanced Drivers, I think that it would be a retrograde step. I know all the safety systems act far quicker than a human, but there needs to be a last line of defence in the unlikely event of a system failure.
> 
> Nigel.



I am sure there will be a last line of defence but it won't be controls, I suspect there will be a big emergency stop button as seen on trains etc. If there were to be a serious enough fault that you needed controls, the controls likely wouldn't work anyway.


----------



## Blackswanwood (16 Mar 2021)

One of the interesting questions with driverless cars is the effect they may have on pedestrian behaviour. As they will not "speed" in a built up area and will stop if a pedestrian steps out will they be able to work effectively in cities as pedestrians stop using the green cross code? 

They also overcome one of the challenges on some of the car share schemes. At the moment people may not want to have to go to a collection point. I could have an app that I book a vehicle of the required type that just turns up at the allotted time.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Mar 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> One of the interesting questions with driverless cars is the effect they may have on pedestrian behaviour. As they will not "speed" in a built up area and will stop if a pedestrian steps out will they be able to work effectively in cities as pedestrians stop using the green cross code?
> 
> They also overcome one of the challenges on some of the car share schemes. At the moment people may not want to have to go to a collection point. I could have an app that I book a vehicle of the required type that just turns up at the allotted time.



Yes that will be interesting.

Your suggestion of booking a car on an app is one of the reasons I think it is madness to be investing in schemes like HS2, or even improving bus routes as has recently been on the news. All those billions of £'s should be invested into developing a nationwide system of driverless cars (taxis really) instead. You wouldn't have to build infrastructure like railways, it wouldn't need a schedule and it could access every corner of the country serving remote areas almost as well as it can serve cities. A simple booking system would let you order a vehicle to your address with prices dependent on demand etc. With a network of vehicles you could travel across the country by swapping vehicles at service stations when having a comfort break. An elderly person who cannot drive or is unfit to drive could be collected at their front door and driven to the other end of the country with little bother and if you were disabled or needed assistance you could book this at the same time so there was someone to help with bags at the interchange. Far better than the current public transport system.


----------



## Nigel Burden (16 Mar 2021)

A lot of pedestrians don't use the green cross code, you only have to look at joggers. Run out, then look. This was something I particularly impressed on my pupils when I was working. Another thing that I've noticed is that pedestrians walk up to pedestrian lights and, without looking, press the button, then look. When the green man appears they cross without looking to see if the motorist was stopping.

Nigel.


----------



## paulrbarnard (16 Mar 2021)

Nigel Burden said:


> Don't think that all liability will eventually fall on manufacturers when cars become driverless. The onus will be on the one sat in the driving seat to take action and over-ride the system if it fails.
> 
> Nigel.


Not necessarily, especially for situations like L5 where there are no user controls or even simple tasks like valet parking where you are not sat in your car. I attended a video conference a couple of weeks ago on the proposed legislation from the U.K. legal working group and initial proposals are for full autonomy liability to be taken by a third party service provider. Think of it like a taxi company or fleet service provider. I don’t agree with that myself but It’s a complex area and a lot of thinking is already underway. As some may have realised this is an area my company works in and we have representation on a number of the Global standardisation bodies.


----------



## Nigel Burden (16 Mar 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> Not necessarily, especially for situations like L5 where there are no user controls or even simple tasks like valet parking where you are not sat in your car. I attended a video conference a couple of weeks ago on the proposed legislation from the U.K. legal working group and initial proposals are for full autonomy liability to be taken by a third party service provider. Think of it like a taxi company or fleet service provider. I don’t agree with that myself but It’s a complex area and a lot of thinking is already underway. As some may have realised this is an area my company works in and we have representation on a number of the Global standardisation bodies.



I can see this opening up a large can of worms, almost as large as a sharpening thread on this forum.  

Nigel.


----------



## alanpo68 (16 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Yes that will be interesting.
> 
> Your suggestion of booking a car on an app is one of the reasons I think it is madness to be investing in schemes like HS2, or even improving bus routes as has recently been on the news. All those billions of £'s should be invested into developing a nationwide system of driverless cars (taxis really) instead. You wouldn't have to build infrastructure like railways, it wouldn't need a schedule and it could access every corner of the country serving remote areas almost as well as it can serve cities. A simple booking system would let you order a vehicle to your address with prices dependent on demand etc. With a network of vehicles you could travel across the country by swapping vehicles at service stations when having a comfort break. An elderly person who cannot drive or is unfit to drive could be collected at their front door and driven to the other end of the country with little bother and if you were disabled or needed assistance you could book this at the same time so there was someone to help with bags at the interchange. Far better than the current public transport system.



It does nothing to address the problem of congestion. Trains and something like the tube take people away from the road network. Even look at how much space per passenger a double-decker bus takes up compared to a car with one person in it.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (16 Mar 2021)

alanpo68 said:


> It does nothing to address the problem of congestion. Trains and something like the tube take people away from the road network. Even look at how much space per passenger a double-decker bus takes up compared to a car with one person in it.


Yes, but once you factor in that you have networked computers in charge, much less space is required, as algorithms are much better than random people at optimising space and motion. Effectively every road becomes like a train.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Mar 2021)

alanpo68 said:


> It does nothing to address the problem of congestion. Trains and something like the tube take people away from the road network. Even look at how much space per passenger a double-decker bus takes up compared to a car with one person in it.



Woody said pretty much what I was going to say. Congestion would be much less of an issue than it is now and of course congestion is only a problem now in cities, the vast majority of the country is congestion free.

In cities such as London for example than your traditional mass transit will still make sense and the replacement of lots of private vehicles with driverless cars using networked route finding would make things much better than they are currently.
Where my idea really excels is outside of the city centres, the places where mass transit is not needed and where even small scale public transport such as minibus services are still not really a viable option. In these places, say rural Cornwall for example, a small fleet of driverless vehicles could give residents much greater independence and freedom than they currently have and at a very low cost both financially and environmentally.


----------



## alanpo68 (17 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Woody said pretty much what I was going to say. Congestion would be much less of an issue than it is now and of course congestion is only a problem now in cities, the vast majority of the country is congestion free.
> 
> In cities such as London for example than your traditional mass transit will still make sense and the replacement of lots of private vehicles with driverless cars using networked route finding would make things much better than they are currently.
> Where my idea really excels is outside of the city centres, the places where mass transit is not needed and where even small scale public transport such as minibus services are still not really a viable option. In these places, say rural Cornwall for example, a small fleet of driverless vehicles could give residents much greater independence and freedom than they currently have and at a very low cost both financially and environmentally.



Except you haven't really addressed the main issue which is that people want to make journeys at the same time. In rural Cornwall you have parents who need to do the school run and then get to work.

In London, you have the rush hour which means you need to get huge numbers of people into one area and then away from the same area 8 hours later.


----------



## Blackswanwood (17 Mar 2021)

alanpo68 said:


> Except you haven't really addressed the main issue which is that people want to make journeys at the same time. In rural Cornwall you have parents who need to do the school run and then get to work.
> 
> In London, you have the rush hour which means you need to get huge numbers of people into one area and then away from the same area 8 hours later.



My sense is that a good shared public transport service is always going to be required but I also wonder if the investment decisions being made today are taking account of what the world needs in the future.

The London rush hour will undoubtedly return but probably not to the extent we have seen it previously .., and over the next twenty years as office space is repurposed may reduce further.

None of us know for certain but interesting to think about!


----------



## Rorschach (17 Mar 2021)

alanpo68 said:


> Except you haven't really addressed the main issue which is that people want to make journeys at the same time. In rural Cornwall you have parents who need to do the school run and then get to work.
> 
> In London, you have the rush hour which means you need to get huge numbers of people into one area and then away from the same area 8 hours later.



Read my post again.


----------



## Steve_Scott (17 Mar 2021)

Woody2Shoes said:


> Yes, but once you factor in that you have networked computers in charge, much less space is required, as algorithms are much better than random people at optimising space and motion. Effectively every road becomes like a train.


This is where driverless personal transit is likely heading. Every vehicle knowing what is around it and meshing perfectly with its surroundings. But the moment you network the ‘cars’, the network is open to be hacked.... big stumbling block


----------



## MikeJhn (17 Mar 2021)

belongumdave said:


> A lot of high end cars do have an adjustable limit, which will sound a 'beep', this is over and above, the cruise control.


The limiter on my car indicates by a green light on the perimeter of the speedometer and limits the effectiveness of the throttle pedal above that speed, until you get used to it, its a very weird effect that your car is not responding to the throttle, it will respond if you push very hard, but at the chosen speed its very easy to keep within it, the dashboard also chimes if you go above the set limit the green light turns read, and flash's a "chosen sped exceeded" warning on the dashboard, I wonder how long it will be before this limit is set by an external source?


----------

