sub-point - does the answer vary depending on the country? Some nations appear to have different levels of relations between police and citizens

@Criggie This does indeed depend strongly on the country. The US is exceptionally adversarial in most social interactions.

I agree with the comments, but how would a person not know that they were speeding unless they are ignoring the speedometer, or is the implication that your speedometer was correct and the speed measurement they performed was flawed? It can also depend on if you are a native in the country or if you a foreigner (for example, in Bolivia perhaps a Bolivian would be likely to ''get off'' without a fine than a gringo, in the US someone might get off easier who is from the US rather than Mexico. But it all depends on the person who pulled you over and how confrontational or hostile they are.)

On a side note, these answers are really fascinating to read. Where I am from speed checks are all completely automated, mobile and stationary. There is no discretion from the police officer or anyhting. You speed, you'll get a fine a couple of weeks later or an appointment to turn in your license/appear in front of a court. The only time police will chase you is if they have a checkpoint and you speed through it at an insane speed, because they will be able to seize your car and sell it for a profit as well as put you in jail for 3 years :)

@Richard An indispensable lecture. Every teenager must see it.

@YanickSalzmann Here in Germany it's that way as well, often -- but if you look close there is a host of opportunities for error. One more obvious one was a recall of a specific certified model because it didn't measure reliably (duh). The constitutional court confirmed the right of the defendants to investigate the raw data of the devices if there was reason for doubt...

@YanickSalzmann that's what happens when you don't have Freedom(tm). The dalliances with speed cameras in the US have generally been "fine only", because anything more than that invokes the criminal protections of the Constitution, and the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. When it's only a matter of cross-examining a cop, the motorist tends to lose, so they don't bother. But robot cameras give so much opportunity to attack the evidence, a defendant could make it very costly for the government. Simpler to limit it to fines, then it's purely civil (51% more likely than not).

@Harper-ReinstateMonica, I'm not sure if your quip about Freedom is tongue-in-cheek. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with freedom, but simply with the (inadequacies) of the technical means?

@Someone, it's too late now, but maybe for another question: I find the question as you posted it very hard to answer in a useful manner. I mean, you kind of gave the answer yourself, and the very short accepted answer is almost explicitly in your question... a much more interesting question would be "if the police officer asks you 'do you know why we stopped you?' or 'did you speed?' or 'we saw you speeding, do you have anything to say to that?' - what are polite, nonconfrontational answers which are not a confession?". Maybe someone wants to flesh that out and post it as another question ;)

@Richard surely depends on the severity of the crime. Don't talk in a murder investigation. But speeding? when the penalty is a smallish fine and if the officer is in a good mood they might not give you one?

@user253751 - Never say anything (ever) seems pretty clear. The risk of you accidentally admitting something vastly outweighs the (small) chance that the officer might let you off with a warning.

@Richard you mean like accidentally admitting to murder when you only intended to admit to speeding?

@user253751 - I would imagine the bigger risk is accidentally admitting to speeding when the officer is considering not ticketing you because he knows that his speed gun is broken.

@Richard so the question is then: how does the probability of getting a ticket if you admit to speeding compare to the probability of getting a ticket if you deny speeding? That is a reasonable question and cannot simply be written off by saying "don't talk to the police"

@user253751 - if you admit it, your chances of receiving a ticket basically go to 100%. If you deny it, the officer will base their decision to ticket you on the evidence they have in front of them.

@Richard and yet, many people admit and then only get warnings.

@user253751 - Citation required. I'm fairly sure most people who get 'let off with a warning' are those that are smart enough not to admit anything and the copper knows they can't make it stick.

@Richard That's a great talk, but in reality Duane himself very explicitly gives traffic stops as an exception to the rule: wglt.org/show/wglts-sound-ideas/2017-04-19/…. I remember that he talks about it somewhere in this video, although I don't remember exactly where: youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8.

@user253751 not the right comparison. You should be comparing the probability of getting a ticket between admitting and not admitting, which is different from denying.

By "not to admit" do you mean denying it, or claiming lack of knowledge? Or cold "please give me my ticket if you have to" without answering question at all?

This appears to have been reposted on Reddit