I just got pulled over for doing 32 in a 30

[dialdrunkforyou]

I’m shaking as I write this. I just drove out to walk the dogs and on my way back a police car pulled me over. I was doing 32 in a 30 and he said I was “lucky” that he’s not choosing to prosecute me over this.

AIBU or is this total overkill? It’s a dry sunny day, the roads are relatively quiet and I wasn’t driving erratically.

The police did the job in Covid that the over zealous government required them to do by bringing in laws that were strict, poorly thought out and caused a great deal of people to behave in certain ways because they were made to feel
afraid. That is their job to uphold the law, whatever it might be and 2mph over the limit is breaking the law. Words of advice were given, move on.

The police concentrating on a dangerous stretch near you sounds very sensible.

But there’s no reason to think it’s in any way relevant to the OP.

I don’t think anyone objects to low speed limits, bumps, width restrictions, cameras, signs, road markings or anything else in accident black spots like blind corners.

Why not It’s a case of prevention and education rather than tickets

I bet OP will be very conscious of her speed next time she’s out

Because it’s so petty. It’s so easy to go 2mph over a speed limit that it’s the norm rather than the exception and doesn’t suggest recklessness or bad motive.

I’d be amazed if the great majority of cars aren’t breaching the speed limit at times by a small amount. Around me there are loads of speed measuring signs - the sort that display your speed in red or green and say ‘slow down’ if you’re over 20 or 30mph, whichever applies. Nearly every car I see shows red and some small excess over the limit.

If the police acted on all these cars there’d be a massive outcry. It’s just not how policing works or should work.

I can’t help but be reminded of the time I came back from being out and about to find a brick from my garden wall had been thrown through my roof (only missing our front window by a few feet), and a couple others had hit the wall. I called 101 only to be told it wasn’t really deemed a crime, they couldn’t do anything and wouldn’t even send officers to see if they could find fingerprints on the bricks. They did gleefully let me know that they would give me a crime number for house insurance purposes though!

I guess non-issues are more important to them than criminal damage.

If they could be reliable I would prefer speed limiters in cars. At present the signal in your car of the speed limit is not always the correct one.

I wouldn’t be against that.

Best of all would be self-driving cars. We could get rid of loads of cars that way as well.

I think the ideal situation is that speeding becomes socially unacceptable in the same way that drink driving, not wearing a seat belt, not using child seats and mobile phone use is. The way to get to that position is zero tolerance. If you don't like the fine, don't do the crime.

Which is why she got a warning, nothing more.

Shaking over a warning?
Where’s her backbone. Learn the lesson and move on.

I'm surprised insurance companies aren't offering black boxes to more drivers than just new young ones.

I hope you never get pulled over by a lone male in a pretty secluded area. It’s not a built up area, just my town is pretty much all 30mph. Even the main roads and back lanes.

I’d never take a black box. My brother got a warning for “anti social” driving, for driving to and from work. He would sometimes work until 4am.

That’s impossible. Any limit will be exceeded sometimes by someone perfectly lawfully and carefully trying to stick to it.

It’s nothing like seatbelts or drink driving or child seats or using a non-hands free phone. Those are all positive choices not to do, or wrongly to do, what’s required or prohibited. If you have speed limits there will be minor breaches constantly. It’s a fact of life.

Tell us you don’t know how to drive without saying…

What a stupid commment.

Some folk live in isolated and remote areas all over the UK, and no such attitudes exist.

Your sarcasm was noted.

I'm puzzled - how can you claim to be "innocent" if you were breaking the speed limit?

I know. Im noting the latest posts and dear god.

Op didn't get a ticket, she didnt have to do a speed awareness course or get points, i did the SAC for the same speed costing me money and haven't whined on for pages about it.

Join the club of crying and shaking behind the sofa when the doorbell rings, a chicken lasts a week and everyone eats big salads.

of course the unpleasant truth is that insurance actuaries know that a conviction for speeding is a predictor of increased risk.

Turns out people that ignore one law tend to ignore others too.

No you weren't. You were going over the speed limit. Therefore you were breaking the law.
It really isn't difficult, even on a hill to stick slightly below the speed limit.

This. YANBU. It's always a shaky feeling when you are confronted by a police officer.

If it was a requirement of insurance, you wouldn't have a choice.
All motability customers who have a named driver on their insurance under the age of 30 now have to have black boxes fitted to their vehicles.
It wouldn't surprise me if all insurance companies insist on every vehicle being fitted with one in the near future

Hmmm. I think buying a BMW or Audi is a predictor of increased risk....

What gets me is that the police will pull someone over for doing 2mph over the speed limit (according to their equipment) but won't deal with people parking (and therefore driving) on pavements. What is actually more dangerous?

Interestingly I’ve just had a google. Toyota tend to build in a 3-5mph overestimation into their speedometers as they can be over, but not under.

So I was likely only doing 29!