This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Hi people, anyone got any advice (smart replies only)about appealing against a speeding fine. Letter of intended prosecution coming out of Inverness caught doing 61mph in a 60mph zone. Any solicitors out there your comments are welcome.
Thanks
d
Thanks
d
In reply to drsdave:
That doesn't sound like there's room for misreading one's speedo right there! sorry can't help.
That doesn't sound like there's room for misreading one's speedo right there! sorry can't help.
In reply to John Ww:
Yep 61 in a 60 coming out of Tain, honestly I would hold my hands up if Id have been caning it, even 10 mph over but 1 mph is fascicle :#
Yep 61 in a 60 coming out of Tain, honestly I would hold my hands up if Id have been caning it, even 10 mph over but 1 mph is fascicle :#
In reply to drsdave:
Is there not something about you need to be doing 5% more than the speed limit to be prosecuted, or is that an urban myth?
Mate in NZ just got fined for speeding in this manner - he was doing 66 (in a 60) according to the cops speed gun, they take off 5% of that speed to "compensate" for you reading the needle on your speedo inaccurately, and they see what your compensated speed is - if it's still over the mark you get fined.
Is there not something about you need to be doing 5% more than the speed limit to be prosecuted, or is that an urban myth?
Mate in NZ just got fined for speeding in this manner - he was doing 66 (in a 60) according to the cops speed gun, they take off 5% of that speed to "compensate" for you reading the needle on your speedo inaccurately, and they see what your compensated speed is - if it's still over the mark you get fined.
In reply to drsdave:
61 in a 60 sounds like your speedo could have been reading closer to 70 than to 60 given that most forces apply the 10% +2 rule, so instead of travelling at an indicated 60(true speed more like 56ish) your real speed and indicated speed were much higher.
Or, you were travelling through an accident blackspot. Either way you would probably be best taking the points and if offered a speed awareness course(do they endorse a licence id the course is attended? not sure.)
61 in a 60 sounds like your speedo could have been reading closer to 70 than to 60 given that most forces apply the 10% +2 rule, so instead of travelling at an indicated 60(true speed more like 56ish) your real speed and indicated speed were much higher.
Or, you were travelling through an accident blackspot. Either way you would probably be best taking the points and if offered a speed awareness course(do they endorse a licence id the course is attended? not sure.)
In reply to drsdave:
Indeed. Hopefully someone will be along shortly with some expert advice. Good luck.
Indeed. Hopefully someone will be along shortly with some expert advice. Good luck.
In reply to drsdave:
This might help
http://www.which.co.uk/cars/driving/driving-advice/dealing-with-speeding-ti...
Out of interest, when was this? Been loads of mobile speed traps lately, my mate thought he got caught up that way a few weekends back.
This might help
http://www.which.co.uk/cars/driving/driving-advice/dealing-with-speeding-ti...
Out of interest, when was this? Been loads of mobile speed traps lately, my mate thought he got caught up that way a few weekends back.
In reply to drsdave:
http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2013/201305-uoba-joining-forc...
Sections 9.3, 9.4, 9.6 and 9.7 seem relevant.
Good luck.
http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2013/201305-uoba-joining-forc...
Sections 9.3, 9.4, 9.6 and 9.7 seem relevant.
Good luck.
In reply to peebles boy:
The guidelines (note guidelines, not rules):
http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2013/201305-uoba-joining-forc...
see page 8
Broadly speaking, the guideline is 10%+2mph over the limit to get a ticket or speed awareness course. 50%+5mph over the limit or already got plenty of points and you get a court summons.
> Is there not something about you need to be doing 5% more than the speed limit to be prosecuted, or is that an urban myth?
The guidelines (note guidelines, not rules):
http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2013/201305-uoba-joining-forc...
see page 8
Broadly speaking, the guideline is 10%+2mph over the limit to get a ticket or speed awareness course. 50%+5mph over the limit or already got plenty of points and you get a court summons.
The usual prosecution guideline is 10% +2mph, although many cameras will get you for 34 in a 30.
There is no way they will prosecute you for this, don't involve a lawyer yet unless you have a pet one, just write back explaining its ridiculous and surely an admin error.
There is no way they will prosecute you for this, don't involve a lawyer yet unless you have a pet one, just write back explaining its ridiculous and surely an admin error.
In reply to drsdave:
do you have other drivers insured to drive your car?
what your usual routine?
you can send the ticket back to them with attached letter claiming you do not believe you were driving. explaining to them that other people drive your car and you do not believe it could be you.
you will receive the ticket back and just send the same letter back again.
afterall the law states : innocent until proven guilty.
if they have you on a photo they got you but if its just a speed gun you might have them.
do you have other drivers insured to drive your car?
what your usual routine?
you can send the ticket back to them with attached letter claiming you do not believe you were driving. explaining to them that other people drive your car and you do not believe it could be you.
you will receive the ticket back and just send the same letter back again.
afterall the law states : innocent until proven guilty.
if they have you on a photo they got you but if its just a speed gun you might have them.
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
whats the worse that can happen, they take you to court and imprison you for fraud.
im sure it will be fine
whats the worse that can happen, they take you to court and imprison you for fraud.
im sure it will be fine
In reply to drsdave:
If the summons is as you say,1 mph above the speed limit, plead not guilty and run a full trial, calling all witness's, it will soon be discontinued by the CPS or laughed out of court by the Sheriff / Magistrates
If the summons is as you say,1 mph above the speed limit, plead not guilty and run a full trial, calling all witness's, it will soon be discontinued by the CPS or laughed out of court by the Sheriff / Magistrates
In reply to drsdave:
I have rarely driven past one of those flashing speed signs ( smiling or otherwise) and had it agree with the car speedo.
That would perhaps infer that my speedo is wrong and needs calibrated. Big how do I check that?
What , then, about the speed guns, are they calibrated, can you ask for proof that the gun that 'proves' you set speeding, has been calibrated?
I have rarely driven past one of those flashing speed signs ( smiling or otherwise) and had it agree with the car speedo.
That would perhaps infer that my speedo is wrong and needs calibrated. Big how do I check that?
What , then, about the speed guns, are they calibrated, can you ask for proof that the gun that 'proves' you set speeding, has been calibrated?
In reply to Kirsticles:
25th Feb in the mid afternoon. I know theres black spots but you know I might just plead not guilty your honor. I actually got fined at Christmas and so Im really really self conscious about speeding and 61 is just damn petty.
25th Feb in the mid afternoon. I know theres black spots but you know I might just plead not guilty your honor. I actually got fined at Christmas and so Im really really self conscious about speeding and 61 is just damn petty.
In reply to Betty Swollocks:
Well Im happy to take professional advice on doing just that as it really does sound totally anal speeding fine.
Well Im happy to take professional advice on doing just that as it really does sound totally anal speeding fine.
In reply to Jack B:
very interesting, a 2 mph tolerance may apply as the speed guns are calibrated to +/- 2 mph, uum thanks
very interesting, a 2 mph tolerance may apply as the speed guns are calibrated to +/- 2 mph, uum thanks
In reply to drsdave:
I Thought 68 was Prosecution Limit in a 60, not 61?
http://www.which.co.uk/cars/driving/driving-advice/dealing-with-speeding-ti...
I Thought 68 was Prosecution Limit in a 60, not 61?
http://www.which.co.uk/cars/driving/driving-advice/dealing-with-speeding-ti...
In reply to Jim C: I thought the standard advice for all these kinds of cases was to post a request for help on the pepipoo.com forums!
In my experience those signs are often very poorly calibrated, unless they are the kind that actually tell you your speed. I've been flashed at by the ones that just flash up "SLOW" or a reminder of the speed limit when I know 100% for certain that I am well under the limit (see below for how I know).
Car speedos are almost always a little bit out. Usually they over-read ie they tell you that you are going faster than you actually are. An over-read error of up to 10% is legal. Having a speedo that under-reads (ie tells you that you're going slower than you actually are) is an offence under construction and use regs. Hence why most over-read a little, just to make sure that they don't under-read.
Easiest way is to calibrate it against GPS. Satnavs work using GPS so any satnav should be able to give an accurate speed reading. If you have a smartphone then it will have a GPS in it: download a GPS speedo app and use that. Or you can use a normal handheld GPS if you have one.
You need to drive at as constant a speed as possible (cruise control on a level road can help here) on as straight a road as possible for a fair distance, a few hundred metres at least.
I've calibrated my dash speedo to "true"/GPS-verified 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70mph. I keep a record of the error at each speed on a card which I keep tucked in behind my sun visor so I can refer to it easily.
You can if the case goes to court, I don't think you can otherwise.
> I have rarely driven past one of those flashing speed signs ( smiling or otherwise) and had it agree with the car speedo.
> That would perhaps infer that my speedo is wrong and needs calibrated.
In my experience those signs are often very poorly calibrated, unless they are the kind that actually tell you your speed. I've been flashed at by the ones that just flash up "SLOW" or a reminder of the speed limit when I know 100% for certain that I am well under the limit (see below for how I know).
Car speedos are almost always a little bit out. Usually they over-read ie they tell you that you are going faster than you actually are. An over-read error of up to 10% is legal. Having a speedo that under-reads (ie tells you that you're going slower than you actually are) is an offence under construction and use regs. Hence why most over-read a little, just to make sure that they don't under-read.
> Big how do I check that?
Easiest way is to calibrate it against GPS. Satnavs work using GPS so any satnav should be able to give an accurate speed reading. If you have a smartphone then it will have a GPS in it: download a GPS speedo app and use that. Or you can use a normal handheld GPS if you have one.
You need to drive at as constant a speed as possible (cruise control on a level road can help here) on as straight a road as possible for a fair distance, a few hundred metres at least.
I've calibrated my dash speedo to "true"/GPS-verified 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70mph. I keep a record of the error at each speed on a card which I keep tucked in behind my sun visor so I can refer to it easily.
> What , then, about the speed guns, are they calibrated, can you ask for proof that the gun that 'proves' you set speeding, has been calibrated?
You can if the case goes to court, I don't think you can otherwise.
In reply to Choss:
As Jack B says, the figures given by Which? are the ACPO guidelines - they define the boundaries within which the police can exercise discretion if they so wish. However, speeding is a strict liability offence and if the police decide that they want to prosecute you for doing 61mph, and they are confident that they can prove it* then you're not going to get off by quoting the guidelines or by claiming that you'd only broken the law a little bit.
People have been done for 31mph in a 30 limit before now.
* eg their correctly calibrated speed gun said you were doing 63mph so they knock off the 2mph error to give you benefit of the doubt and put 61mph on the NIP.
> I Thought 68 was Prosecution Limit in a 60, not 61?
As Jack B says, the figures given by Which? are the ACPO guidelines - they define the boundaries within which the police can exercise discretion if they so wish. However, speeding is a strict liability offence and if the police decide that they want to prosecute you for doing 61mph, and they are confident that they can prove it* then you're not going to get off by quoting the guidelines or by claiming that you'd only broken the law a little bit.
People have been done for 31mph in a 30 limit before now.
* eg their correctly calibrated speed gun said you were doing 63mph so they knock off the 2mph error to give you benefit of the doubt and put 61mph on the NIP.
In reply to drsdave:
If you've got a few quid in the bank I'd be inclined to get a solicitor and defend this one. It would probably be cheaper just to take the points however so it depends how strongly you feel about it. I think you have a fair punt at winning the case.
FWIW I don't think the police do their calculations in the way some other posters have suggested i.e. I don't think they do subtract the 2mph and 10% before issuing the notice. It would seem a bit odd for them to put on a summons/FPN that they have clocked you at 61 when in fact their records show they have clocked you at 69. I think the speed on the summons/FPN is supposed to be the actual speed they have recorded from the gun.
If you've got a few quid in the bank I'd be inclined to get a solicitor and defend this one. It would probably be cheaper just to take the points however so it depends how strongly you feel about it. I think you have a fair punt at winning the case.
FWIW I don't think the police do their calculations in the way some other posters have suggested i.e. I don't think they do subtract the 2mph and 10% before issuing the notice. It would seem a bit odd for them to put on a summons/FPN that they have clocked you at 61 when in fact their records show they have clocked you at 69. I think the speed on the summons/FPN is supposed to be the actual speed they have recorded from the gun.
In reply to M0nkey:
I agree, the NIP won't show the alleged speed adjusted by the guideline discretionary leeway amount. If you read what I wrote as meaning that then I wrote it wrong!
I was working from the OP's reply to Jack B where it was stated that speed guns are calibrated to +/-2mph. Having read the link that Jack B provided, I can't see any statement to that effect in there, and I've yet to find any similar assertion online, so I'm now doubtful of it's veracity.
Nonetheless, I suspect that the police do have an idea of the range of error in their devices, although they seem reluctant to divulge the information. I also believe that, if the case came to court and there was any possibility of doubt, the police would put forward evidence that the accused was caught doing "at least" Xmph, where X would be the the reading from the detection device minus the known margin of error.
ISTR one case where a driver (could have been a biker) was successfully prosecuted on the basis that they were going too fast for the radar in the speed camera to get a reliable reading! (IIRC this was supported by the photographic evidence which showed them as being way off down the road by the time the second picture was taken.)
> FWIW I don't think the police do their calculations in the way some other posters have suggested i.e. I don't think they do subtract the 2mph and 10% before issuing the notice.
I agree, the NIP won't show the alleged speed adjusted by the guideline discretionary leeway amount. If you read what I wrote as meaning that then I wrote it wrong!
I was working from the OP's reply to Jack B where it was stated that speed guns are calibrated to +/-2mph. Having read the link that Jack B provided, I can't see any statement to that effect in there, and I've yet to find any similar assertion online, so I'm now doubtful of it's veracity.
Nonetheless, I suspect that the police do have an idea of the range of error in their devices, although they seem reluctant to divulge the information. I also believe that, if the case came to court and there was any possibility of doubt, the police would put forward evidence that the accused was caught doing "at least" Xmph, where X would be the the reading from the detection device minus the known margin of error.
ISTR one case where a driver (could have been a biker) was successfully prosecuted on the basis that they were going too fast for the radar in the speed camera to get a reliable reading! (IIRC this was supported by the photographic evidence which showed them as being way off down the road by the time the second picture was taken.)
Post edited at 11:17
In reply to drsdave:
Just a thought - there wasn't roadworks or anything that had a reduced speed limit in effect? My mate got fined a few years back for speeding (57mph) because he had passed the "End of Roadworks" sign (50mph limit) but hadn't yet passed the "60mph sign".....to say he was a bit pissed off is an understatement and it always gets brought out every now and again when someone suggests they were unfairly fined for speeding!!!!
Just a thought - there wasn't roadworks or anything that had a reduced speed limit in effect? My mate got fined a few years back for speeding (57mph) because he had passed the "End of Roadworks" sign (50mph limit) but hadn't yet passed the "60mph sign".....to say he was a bit pissed off is an understatement and it always gets brought out every now and again when someone suggests they were unfairly fined for speeding!!!!
In reply to Jim C:
I have rarely driven past one of those flashing speed signs ( smiling or otherwise) and had it agree with the car speedo.
Unless I am very much mistaken the "Check your speed" signs aren't very reliable. I regularly set off one near my parents so decided to test it I stuck 3 GPS units into a car with a (admittedly recently expired) calibrated speedo and the sign was hugely out. While I wouldn't be in a rush to trust 1 gps unit for instantaneous speed I'd say 3 in close agreement on a dead straight road was a fair indicator. Sign read 39 I was doing 29.
Speed cameras used for enforcement purposes on the other hand are calibrated so should be accurate.
I have rarely driven past one of those flashing speed signs ( smiling or otherwise) and had it agree with the car speedo.
Unless I am very much mistaken the "Check your speed" signs aren't very reliable. I regularly set off one near my parents so decided to test it I stuck 3 GPS units into a car with a (admittedly recently expired) calibrated speedo and the sign was hugely out. While I wouldn't be in a rush to trust 1 gps unit for instantaneous speed I'd say 3 in close agreement on a dead straight road was a fair indicator. Sign read 39 I was doing 29.
Speed cameras used for enforcement purposes on the other hand are calibrated so should be accurate.
In reply to drsdave:
For info, no, your licence is not endorsed if you do the speed awareness course.
For info, no, your licence is not endorsed if you do the speed awareness course.
In reply to peebles boy:
I've seen lots of roadworks including on motorways where there is no limit sign changing back to the original limit at the end of roadworks. Of course this means that say the 50 mph reduced limit at roadworks on a motorway remains in force and this could be 100 or more miles on certain motorways!!
> Just a thought - there wasn't roadworks or anything that had a reduced speed limit in effect? My mate got fined a few years back for speeding (57mph) because he had passed the "End of Roadworks" sign (50mph limit) but hadn't yet passed the "60mph sign".....to say he was a bit pissed off is an understatement and it always gets brought out every now and again when someone suggests they were unfairly fined for speeding!!!!
I've seen lots of roadworks including on motorways where there is no limit sign changing back to the original limit at the end of roadworks. Of course this means that say the 50 mph reduced limit at roadworks on a motorway remains in force and this could be 100 or more miles on certain motorways!!
In reply to Ava Adore:
However insurance companies are now wising up and specifically asking "have you ever gone on a mandated speed awareness course" (or similar)
Neil
However insurance companies are now wising up and specifically asking "have you ever gone on a mandated speed awareness course" (or similar)
Neil
In reply to Climbing Pieman:
I don't think it does mean that, as for a speed limit other than the default to remain in force there need to be repeaters.
Neil
I don't think it does mean that, as for a speed limit other than the default to remain in force there need to be repeaters.
Neil
In reply to Ban1:
Great idea - if you want to get the OP 6 points and a £1000 fine which I believe is the penalty for pulling this sort of crap and failing to identify the driver or failure to respond to the NIP.
> you can send the ticket back to them with attached letter claiming you do not believe you were driving. explaining to them that other people drive your car and you do not believe it could be you.
> you will receive the ticket back and just send the same letter back again.
> afterall the law states : innocent until proven guilty.
Great idea - if you want to get the OP 6 points and a £1000 fine which I believe is the penalty for pulling this sort of crap and failing to identify the driver or failure to respond to the NIP.
In reply to Martin W:
Just reading through the thread, I noticed the ACPO document linked earlier states that the error is 2mph below 66mph, and 3% of the speed above that.
On that basis, it might be worth the OP writing back and stating that he believes it may be a calibration error, and do they maybe want to withdraw the ticket?
> Nonetheless, I suspect that the police do have an idea of the range of error in their devices, although they seem reluctant to divulge the information. I also believe that, if the case came to court and there was any possibility of doubt, the police would put forward evidence that the accused was caught doing "at least" Xmph, where X would be the the reading from the detection device minus the known margin of error.
Just reading through the thread, I noticed the ACPO document linked earlier states that the error is 2mph below 66mph, and 3% of the speed above that.
On that basis, it might be worth the OP writing back and stating that he believes it may be a calibration error, and do they maybe want to withdraw the ticket?
In reply to mwr72:
I believe that they don't offer speed awareness courses in Scotland as an alternative to points.
I believe that they don't offer speed awareness courses in Scotland as an alternative to points.
In reply to Jim C:
I have driven past several of these flashing speed warning lights in a fairly short space of time (In Sheffield) I tried to keep my speedo at 30mph (Yes I am that sad, but I wanted to see how close to reality my speedo registered!) The range on the flashing lights varied from 27 to 35mph (about a 25% variation). So my speedo is inconsistently incorrect, or those stupid flashing warning light things are so badly calibrated they are pointless! I know which I am going for.
I have seen a mobile speed camera placed about 100m past one of these (which did give a low reading), and he seemed as though he would be quite busy, with all the cars that accelerated as they passed the warning light.
I have driven past several of these flashing speed warning lights in a fairly short space of time (In Sheffield) I tried to keep my speedo at 30mph (Yes I am that sad, but I wanted to see how close to reality my speedo registered!) The range on the flashing lights varied from 27 to 35mph (about a 25% variation). So my speedo is inconsistently incorrect, or those stupid flashing warning light things are so badly calibrated they are pointless! I know which I am going for.
I have seen a mobile speed camera placed about 100m past one of these (which did give a low reading), and he seemed as though he would be quite busy, with all the cars that accelerated as they passed the warning light.
In reply to drsdave:
before you do anything else, can i suggest... revisit the scene. photgraph the sign that you believe gives you "permission" to drive at 60mph, mark it's position on a map, follow your route to wear you were noted as speeding and make totally sure there isn't a sign you missed.
also maybe ask the councilif there were any temp restrictions on in the area on the day you were clocked
gather as much info as you can incase it does go to court... if you are interviewed at all offically by the police, make sure you DO present any info you have gathered in your defence.
please note i'm not a legal expert or in the police... but it's what i would do in your position
before you do anything else, can i suggest... revisit the scene. photgraph the sign that you believe gives you "permission" to drive at 60mph, mark it's position on a map, follow your route to wear you were noted as speeding and make totally sure there isn't a sign you missed.
also maybe ask the councilif there were any temp restrictions on in the area on the day you were clocked
gather as much info as you can incase it does go to court... if you are interviewed at all offically by the police, make sure you DO present any info you have gathered in your defence.
please note i'm not a legal expert or in the police... but it's what i would do in your position
In reply to drsdave:
I'm not an expert in Scotland but I've appealed several NIPs in England and have argued my case in court successfully a couple of times without paying a lawyer to represent me.
I suggest writing an asking for evidence of the equipment calibration as a first step, whether its a box or a speed gun.
You may need to be prepared to tough it out in court though - most people don't fancy this and accept the fine, but in my case when the police didn't show up with any calibration evidence it was thrown out.
Also another occasion where the signage was so bad (I took photos) it was thrown out.
I'm not an expert in Scotland but I've appealed several NIPs in England and have argued my case in court successfully a couple of times without paying a lawyer to represent me.
I suggest writing an asking for evidence of the equipment calibration as a first step, whether its a box or a speed gun.
You may need to be prepared to tough it out in court though - most people don't fancy this and accept the fine, but in my case when the police didn't show up with any calibration evidence it was thrown out.
Also another occasion where the signage was so bad (I took photos) it was thrown out.
In reply to wintertree:
Agreed - the driver is expected to know who is using the car at any given time or have an extremely compelling reason why that isn't reasonable. The only time I have heard that one work was a family who were moving home, a distance of a few miles and were able to prove that multiple people had spent an entire day shuttling back and forward all taking turns driving at various times... they managed to demonstrate what they had been doing to the extent it was clear nobody could possibly know who was in the car at a set time in the day.
Even then, I suspect the judge was kind as in principle the cars owner is responsible unless they can prove otherwise, and if that means noting down dates and times somebody else was driving, thats kind of what the law suggests you should be doing.
Hence why hire company/car share/pool vehicles etc are all pretty @nal about recording who has the keys at what time.
Agreed - the driver is expected to know who is using the car at any given time or have an extremely compelling reason why that isn't reasonable. The only time I have heard that one work was a family who were moving home, a distance of a few miles and were able to prove that multiple people had spent an entire day shuttling back and forward all taking turns driving at various times... they managed to demonstrate what they had been doing to the extent it was clear nobody could possibly know who was in the car at a set time in the day.
Even then, I suspect the judge was kind as in principle the cars owner is responsible unless they can prove otherwise, and if that means noting down dates and times somebody else was driving, thats kind of what the law suggests you should be doing.
Hence why hire company/car share/pool vehicles etc are all pretty @nal about recording who has the keys at what time.
In reply to drsdave:
If you were indeed doing 61mph instead of 60, I would consider paying the fine. How much is it ? Should be about £60. If you end up having to go to court and spend time preparing you case, that's probably not worth your time unless you work for less than minimum wage.
> Hi people, anyone got any advice (smart replies only)about appealing against a speeding fine. Letter of intended prosecution coming out of Inverness caught doing 61mph in a 60mph zone. Any solicitors out there your comments are welcome.
> Thanks
> d
If you were indeed doing 61mph instead of 60, I would consider paying the fine. How much is it ? Should be about £60. If you end up having to go to court and spend time preparing you case, that's probably not worth your time unless you work for less than minimum wage.
In reply to drsdave:
I'd try writing a letter to the address detailed on your ticket, and enclosing it with the NIP.
Apologising for being over the speed limit, if that is what the reading shows, explaining any circumstances around the momentary lapse of concentration that allowed you to exceed the limit by 1mph, perhaps a level of excess speed that was not even noticeable on your analogue Speedo.
It "might" be worth mentioning ACPO guidelines, though I'm not sure, and then asking politely if they would consider exercising any discretion in relation to this matter.
The downside to this is you are (unless you are very carueful with your wording) in effect pleading guilty to exceeding the speed limit and it may affect any proceedings should you want to fight it at court.
I'd try writing a letter to the address detailed on your ticket, and enclosing it with the NIP.
Apologising for being over the speed limit, if that is what the reading shows, explaining any circumstances around the momentary lapse of concentration that allowed you to exceed the limit by 1mph, perhaps a level of excess speed that was not even noticeable on your analogue Speedo.
It "might" be worth mentioning ACPO guidelines, though I'm not sure, and then asking politely if they would consider exercising any discretion in relation to this matter.
The downside to this is you are (unless you are very carueful with your wording) in effect pleading guilty to exceeding the speed limit and it may affect any proceedings should you want to fight it at court.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Which will negate the initiative of the speed awareness courses, because if they don't benefit, there will be no incentive for motorists to do one.
Retrograde step IMHO
> However insurance companies are now wising up and specifically asking "have you ever gone on a mandated speed awareness course" (or similar)
> Neil
Which will negate the initiative of the speed awareness courses, because if they don't benefit, there will be no incentive for motorists to do one.
Retrograde step IMHO
In reply to Neil Williams:
> I don't think it does mean that, as for a speed limit other than the default to remain in force there need to be repeaters.
> Neil
Ah ok I don't know. Could be open to interpretation then as to when it's safe to speed up to the default speed. How is the average motorist to know where the repeater(s) should be that is/are missing ? How long after the roadwork end before you can speed up.? I've seen some where signs to change back to the national speed limit are a long long way past the end of cones!In reply to off-duty:
Seriously!!!
I'll give the OP £10 if he gets away with that!
> I'd try writing a letter to the address detailed on your ticket, and enclosing it with the NIP.
> Apologising for being over the speed limit, ...........................
Seriously!!!
I'll give the OP £10 if he gets away with that!
In reply to Trangia:
Depends how many points you have. If you're on 9 there would still be a benefit because it would avoid a ban.
Neil
Depends how many points you have. If you're on 9 there would still be a benefit because it would avoid a ban.
Neil
In reply to Climbing Pieman:
That is the problem, as repeaters just have to be at "regular intervals" or somesuch, I don't think there is a strict definition. It would be one for a court to decide.
I haven't seen any motorway roadworks without the closing NSL sign recently, though. Now there is enforcement they tend to be a bit stricter about it all.
Neil
That is the problem, as repeaters just have to be at "regular intervals" or somesuch, I don't think there is a strict definition. It would be one for a court to decide.
I haven't seen any motorway roadworks without the closing NSL sign recently, though. Now there is enforcement they tend to be a bit stricter about it all.
Neil
In reply to Lusk:
It's worked for me - mitigating circs in addition to a minor infringement on an unfamiliar road system. There are human beings in thèse offices.
They are going to struggle to use discretion if you outright deny the offence though.
> Seriously!!!
> I'll give the OP £10 if he gets away with that!
It's worked for me - mitigating circs in addition to a minor infringement on an unfamiliar road system. There are human beings in thèse offices.
They are going to struggle to use discretion if you outright deny the offence though.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Although asking when it was last calibrated has been known to get tickets withdrawn. I suspect forces have got wise to this by now, though.
> Speed cameras used for enforcement purposes on the other hand are calibrated so should be accurate.
Although asking when it was last calibrated has been known to get tickets withdrawn. I suspect forces have got wise to this by now, though.
In reply to drsdave:
Was it daytime or at night? If at night there may be a loop hole to do with the terminal speed limit fines. Basically if it is at night the terminal speed limit signs have to either not be lighted, or all be lighted. It is not uncommon for the signs to be lighted on one side of the road and un lighted on the other due to error or a bulb being out.
I watched a mate successfully defend himself on this basis. Other thing you can do is attach all the information they request to another piece of paper instead of the 'confession' they send you.
Get in touch if you want further details!
Was it daytime or at night? If at night there may be a loop hole to do with the terminal speed limit fines. Basically if it is at night the terminal speed limit signs have to either not be lighted, or all be lighted. It is not uncommon for the signs to be lighted on one side of the road and un lighted on the other due to error or a bulb being out.
I watched a mate successfully defend himself on this basis. Other thing you can do is attach all the information they request to another piece of paper instead of the 'confession' they send you.
Get in touch if you want further details!
Post edited at 19:48
In reply to drsdave:
Unless you really don't have any cash, I would just pay up if its 30 or 60 quid. I know its a fair whack of dosh, but seriously, some of the other posters are recommending either lengthy, stressful back-and forwards letter writing courses, or collecting "evidence", researching every last letter of the law and taking it to court.
It does seem a bit anal if you were 1mph over, but its just gonna be a whole shitload of hassle. Pay up and move on.
Unless you really don't have any cash, I would just pay up if its 30 or 60 quid. I know its a fair whack of dosh, but seriously, some of the other posters are recommending either lengthy, stressful back-and forwards letter writing courses, or collecting "evidence", researching every last letter of the law and taking it to court.
It does seem a bit anal if you were 1mph over, but its just gonna be a whole shitload of hassle. Pay up and move on.
In reply to Lusk:
If only it had been a patrol car - I might have tried that old chestnut though these days it would be more likely to result in my arrest than getting let off anything...
But it was a speed camera - so no undue influence was available...
> 'It's worked for me'
> I bet it did, you're one of them!
If only it had been a patrol car - I might have tried that old chestnut though these days it would be more likely to result in my arrest than getting let off anything...
But it was a speed camera - so no undue influence was available...
In reply to drsdave:
say that you picked up a hitch hiker and you let him drive because you felt tired,make sure your insurance is valid for other people to drive your car.
say that you picked up a hitch hiker and you let him drive because you felt tired,make sure your insurance is valid for other people to drive your car.
In reply to off-duty:
I got stopped speeding once, years ago, by a lone officer.
Booked me, 3 points etc., was he allowed to do that?
Just out of interest like!
I got stopped speeding once, years ago, by a lone officer.
Booked me, 3 points etc., was he allowed to do that?
Just out of interest like!
In reply to Neil Williams:
> I haven't seen any motorway roadworks without the closing NSL sign recently, though. Now there is enforcement they tend to be a bit stricter about it all.
Thanks for info. There have been loads without the closing sign up here in Scotland over the last year. It struck me as odd but that's the way it's been. Even last week there was a 40 mph restriction on a motorway for a very long distance, with 40 repeaters, but at the end no closing sign was seen. The cones just ended and back to two lanes! In reply to Lusk:
In England, yes unfortunately. Provided he is driving a vehicle with a calibrated speedo (usually Traffic - who would catch you on camera as well normally).
Scotland - not so sure - they have issues with corroboration.
> I got stopped speeding once, years ago, by a lone officer.
> Booked me, 3 points etc., was he allowed to do that?
> Just out of interest like!
In England, yes unfortunately. Provided he is driving a vehicle with a calibrated speedo (usually Traffic - who would catch you on camera as well normally).
Scotland - not so sure - they have issues with corroboration.
In reply to off-duty:
On other occasions since then, I've been stopped, one had a rant at me, couldn't get a word in edgeways; another on the M6, he was quite calm; both just sent me on my way.
Couldn't they be bothered with the paperwork?!
On other occasions since then, I've been stopped, one had a rant at me, couldn't get a word in edgeways; another on the M6, he was quite calm; both just sent me on my way.
Couldn't they be bothered with the paperwork?!
In reply to Orgsm:
Bit harsh? Speeding in a 30, yes, tough pay it, no excuse! But 61 in a 60, car speedo isn't that accurate.
If I was the OP I would be questioning the legitimacy of this fine.
Adam
Bit harsh? Speeding in a 30, yes, tough pay it, no excuse! But 61 in a 60, car speedo isn't that accurate.
If I was the OP I would be questioning the legitimacy of this fine.
Adam
In reply to Lusk:
Possibly. Or maybe you passed the "attitude test".
> On other occasions since then, I've been stopped, one had a rant at me, couldn't get a word in edgeways; another on the M6, he was quite calm; both just sent me on my way.
> Couldn't they be bothered with the paperwork?!
Possibly. Or maybe you passed the "attitude test".
In reply to off-duty:
Hahaha, They must have been on drugs if I passed that.
> maybe you passed the "attitude test".
Hahaha, They must have been on drugs if I passed that.
In reply to drsdave:
If this matter is still live and it is genuinely 61 in a 60 you really should contact me. It can be sorted very fast.
If this matter is still live and it is genuinely 61 in a 60 you really should contact me. It can be sorted very fast.
In reply to wintertree:
Or indeed a prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice (or Scottish equivalent), which usually only amounts to a short spell in prison, so what the hell...
> Great idea - if you want to get the OP 6 points and a £1000 fine which I believe is the penalty for pulling this sort of crap and failing to identify the driver or failure to respond to the NIP.
Or indeed a prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice (or Scottish equivalent), which usually only amounts to a short spell in prison, so what the hell...
Can only agree with Off Duty about the attitude test. I've been pulled several times for speeding on my bike at 'a stretch in Prison type speeds' and sent on my way with a severe bollocking. If I'd been the Copper on several of these occasions, I'd have nicked me - and we're talking N.Wales Police here, who were reputed to be very anti-bike.
Speak as you'd like to be spoken to is my motto.
Speak as you'd like to be spoken to is my motto.
In reply to drsdave:
demand to see officer training and / or equipment calibration certificates or you'll go to court...worked for a mate once, they dropped the charge 2 days later...
demand to see officer training and / or equipment calibration certificates or you'll go to court...worked for a mate once, they dropped the charge 2 days later...
In reply to mozzer:
BORING!!!
> Unless you really don't have any cash, I would just pay up if its 30 or 60 quid. I know its a fair whack of dosh, but seriously, some of the other posters are recommending either lengthy, stressful back-and forwards letter writing courses, or collecting "evidence", researching every last letter of the law and taking it to court.
> Pay up and move on.
BORING!!!
In reply to butteredfrog:
Which is why speedos read significantly over actual speed . Speedo must have been reading close to 70mph to come out at 61mph. OP must have known they were speeding. Just respond, say they were driver and move on.
> Bit harsh? Speeding in a 30, yes, tough pay it, no excuse! But 61 in a 60, car speedo isn't that accurate.
> If I was the OP I would be questioning the legitimacy of this fine.
> Adam
Which is why speedos read significantly over actual speed . Speedo must have been reading close to 70mph to come out at 61mph. OP must have known they were speeding. Just respond, say they were driver and move on.
In reply to Orgsm:
Like I said earlier it's 1mph over the national speed limit. (That's normal walking speed with a Zimmer frame). I appreciate you have to draw the line some ware, but this really doesn't cross it, does it?
Speeding in a 20,30,40 even, there is no excuse, but 1mph over 60 on the open road? I would contest this if I was the OP and I suspect you would too.
Like I said earlier it's 1mph over the national speed limit. (That's normal walking speed with a Zimmer frame). I appreciate you have to draw the line some ware, but this really doesn't cross it, does it?
Speeding in a 20,30,40 even, there is no excuse, but 1mph over 60 on the open road? I would contest this if I was the OP and I suspect you would too.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Roger thank you ever so much for your well meant offer. I shall indead be in touch.
Kindest Regards
D
Roger thank you ever so much for your well meant offer. I shall indead be in touch.
Kindest Regards
D
In reply to Andy Nisbet: Got to agree here, if Roger Webb is offering to help - contact him straight away...!
In reply to Orgsm:
Agreed
To make sure I don't speed I have one of these...http://www.snooper.co.uk/car/snooper-my-speed-aura.html
Worth every penny(I bought it half price in a promotion).
I also have one one of their sat-navs.
Both are very very accurate, I've tested them on newly calibrated trucks.
Agreed
> No excuse for speeding in a 60 either.
To make sure I don't speed I have one of these...http://www.snooper.co.uk/car/snooper-my-speed-aura.html
Worth every penny(I bought it half price in a promotion).
I also have one one of their sat-navs.
Both are very very accurate, I've tested them on newly calibrated trucks.
In reply to Dan Arkle:
No, thats there camera's reading.. so that allows for speedo errors.
TBH whenever I have been caught, even when its just been 34 in a 30.. I've thought 'thank f*ck'.. as I've always been going a good 10% over. I think they are set VERY consrvatively.
If you look at your satnav speed and speedo speed they are often out and the speedo is normally the higher one.
No, thats there camera's reading.. so that allows for speedo errors.
TBH whenever I have been caught, even when its just been 34 in a 30.. I've thought 'thank f*ck'.. as I've always been going a good 10% over. I think they are set VERY consrvatively.
If you look at your satnav speed and speedo speed they are often out and the speedo is normally the higher one.
In reply to off-duty:
Signed officer plod.. gob smacked you got away with it.. just so unlike the police..
> It's worked for me - mitigating circs in addition to a minor infringement on an unfamiliar road system. There are human beings in thèse offices.
> They are going to struggle to use discretion if you outright deny the offence though.
Signed officer plod.. gob smacked you got away with it.. just so unlike the police..
In reply to drsdave:
61 in a 60 zone, does seem a bit churlish, and I would have thought a good solicitor would get you off - at a price!
But then again, maybe a letter to the Chief Constable pointing out that possibly, the force's time and resource, could be better deployed arresting real criminals, and crime prevention, than prosecuting motorists for breaking the speed limit in a 'non built up' area by 1 mph - pointing out also, that maybe it might be an entertaining story for the local press to cover!
Of course, you could do what I do whenever I get a speeding ticket - think about all the times you've been speeding, and NOT got a ticket.
61 in a 60 zone, does seem a bit churlish, and I would have thought a good solicitor would get you off - at a price!
But then again, maybe a letter to the Chief Constable pointing out that possibly, the force's time and resource, could be better deployed arresting real criminals, and crime prevention, than prosecuting motorists for breaking the speed limit in a 'non built up' area by 1 mph - pointing out also, that maybe it might be an entertaining story for the local press to cover!
Of course, you could do what I do whenever I get a speeding ticket - think about all the times you've been speeding, and NOT got a ticket.
In reply to butteredfrog:
Close but no cigar.
> You are Richard Brunstrom, I claim my £5!
Close but no cigar.
Post edited at 21:58
In reply to Andy Nisbet:
Yes Andy, that certainly would be top of my list!
A few points about speeding.
1. Lists of Home Office type approved speed measuring devices appear on gov.uk
2. The Home Office has little or no competence in the field of measurement.
3. Accredited calibration laboratories are listed in the UKAS website. (UKAS is the sole national accreditation body appointed by statute)
4. The only UKAS accreditation for speed measuring equipment is Forensic Science NI and for only three types of equipment.
5. Many other police forces have test laboratory accreditation with UKAS for other forensic purposes but no calibration accreditation for speed measuring. (If there is a semen stain on a laser speed gun then they can give an accredited report on that.)
6. Police forces have been known to produce calibration certificates for speed measuring devices used in prosecutions that are issued by non-accredited calibration contractors. I am tempted to ask some of these contractors about records indicating they are run by some very suspicious overseas directors. I am tempted to ask some of these contractors why they cannot even be bothered writing a calibration certificate that makes sense.
7. It is quite routine for there to be no objective evidence that the miles per hour measured by speed measuring equipment for law enforcement is the same as the miles per hour that can be calculated from the units of measure defined in the Weights and Measures Act.
8. The Crown Office have been told the essential points of this already.
9. Year after year DfT annual reports showed that most accidents causing death or serious injury have as their primary causes lack of attention or poor decisions about hazard. Exceeding the speed limit featured as a primary cause for 5% or less of such accidents. The format of recent reports has changed. The new formats do not quite manage to make speeding appear the root of all evil. Good try though.
10. A thousand people die every year on UK roads because idiots pay more attention to changing CDs or smoking cigarettes or arguing with their partner or talking on the phone than to driving their car or truck safely. Unsafe at any speed.
11. Nobody gives a sh1t.
12. Do you think that if police and prosecutors had been listening in the maths and physics classes at school they'd have been able to get a proper job?
14. I shall continue to keep Roger's phone number handy.
> contact rogerwebb, seriously.
Yes Andy, that certainly would be top of my list!
A few points about speeding.
1. Lists of Home Office type approved speed measuring devices appear on gov.uk
2. The Home Office has little or no competence in the field of measurement.
3. Accredited calibration laboratories are listed in the UKAS website. (UKAS is the sole national accreditation body appointed by statute)
4. The only UKAS accreditation for speed measuring equipment is Forensic Science NI and for only three types of equipment.
5. Many other police forces have test laboratory accreditation with UKAS for other forensic purposes but no calibration accreditation for speed measuring. (If there is a semen stain on a laser speed gun then they can give an accredited report on that.)
6. Police forces have been known to produce calibration certificates for speed measuring devices used in prosecutions that are issued by non-accredited calibration contractors. I am tempted to ask some of these contractors about records indicating they are run by some very suspicious overseas directors. I am tempted to ask some of these contractors why they cannot even be bothered writing a calibration certificate that makes sense.
7. It is quite routine for there to be no objective evidence that the miles per hour measured by speed measuring equipment for law enforcement is the same as the miles per hour that can be calculated from the units of measure defined in the Weights and Measures Act.
8. The Crown Office have been told the essential points of this already.
9. Year after year DfT annual reports showed that most accidents causing death or serious injury have as their primary causes lack of attention or poor decisions about hazard. Exceeding the speed limit featured as a primary cause for 5% or less of such accidents. The format of recent reports has changed. The new formats do not quite manage to make speeding appear the root of all evil. Good try though.
10. A thousand people die every year on UK roads because idiots pay more attention to changing CDs or smoking cigarettes or arguing with their partner or talking on the phone than to driving their car or truck safely. Unsafe at any speed.
11. Nobody gives a sh1t.
12. Do you think that if police and prosecutors had been listening in the maths and physics classes at school they'd have been able to get a proper job?
14. I shall continue to keep Roger's phone number handy.
Post edited at 03:44
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Re points 9 and 10 - have you considered that the consequences of accidents are much more severe at speed. Given that careless/dangerous driving offence exists already to prosecute those who are guilty of more than momentary inattention, the difficulty is one of monitoring and preventing that "primary cause". The easy alternative is to try and mitigate the consequences by ensuring speeds are kept within limits.
Re point 12 I take it that is an attempt at humour. You do rather demean yourself by saying it - unless of course you are referring to traffic cops. We all hate them - particularly when they knock on your door to tell you your relative has been in a serious accident. Pah! - they should go out and actually work for a living.
Re points 9 and 10 - have you considered that the consequences of accidents are much more severe at speed. Given that careless/dangerous driving offence exists already to prosecute those who are guilty of more than momentary inattention, the difficulty is one of monitoring and preventing that "primary cause". The easy alternative is to try and mitigate the consequences by ensuring speeds are kept within limits.
Re point 12 I take it that is an attempt at humour. You do rather demean yourself by saying it - unless of course you are referring to traffic cops. We all hate them - particularly when they knock on your door to tell you your relative has been in a serious accident. Pah! - they should go out and actually work for a living.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
15. The cause of many incidents is often more attributable to violations of minimum car separations in time, regardless of speed.
If you count car separations in seconds it is not uncommon to find 50% of drivers violating the 2 second rule at busy times. The effort and cost spend on prosecuting minor speeding whilst totally ignoring tailgating astounds me. I think a lot of the problem can be laid down at an uninformed road safety lobby. Quite often after a 100 car pileup informed people will say "conditions were a cause" instead of "driving to close to the car on front for those conditions were the sole cause for 99 drivers" - these mega pileups show just how bad the problem can be on the motorways.
I would happily support more covert monitoring of speeding offences in 30mph zones and robust automated enforcement of car-car separation on highways and motorways. Not exactly the M.O. of the police on the Inverness area...
15. The cause of many incidents is often more attributable to violations of minimum car separations in time, regardless of speed.
If you count car separations in seconds it is not uncommon to find 50% of drivers violating the 2 second rule at busy times. The effort and cost spend on prosecuting minor speeding whilst totally ignoring tailgating astounds me. I think a lot of the problem can be laid down at an uninformed road safety lobby. Quite often after a 100 car pileup informed people will say "conditions were a cause" instead of "driving to close to the car on front for those conditions were the sole cause for 99 drivers" - these mega pileups show just how bad the problem can be on the motorways.
I would happily support more covert monitoring of speeding offences in 30mph zones and robust automated enforcement of car-car separation on highways and motorways. Not exactly the M.O. of the police on the Inverness area...
In reply to wintertree:
We also seem, unlike say the Dutch, to be unwilling to enforce things like using underpasses to cross 70mph dual carriageways, only motorways.
There has been another person killed on such a road in Milton Keynes, and we once again have a campaign to reduce the speed limit on that stretch of road, rather than to enforce it (to stop people doing the ton down there as some do) and for a strong education campaign pointing out that the underpasses are frequent, kept clean and free of graffiti, well-lit, do not have a poor crime record and are the safest way to cross. CCTV could perhaps even be added to them.
The Milton Keynes road concept is based around full segregation of pedestrians/cyclists and cars/lorries/buses, and if used properly is both safe and pleasant for both.
Neil
We also seem, unlike say the Dutch, to be unwilling to enforce things like using underpasses to cross 70mph dual carriageways, only motorways.
There has been another person killed on such a road in Milton Keynes, and we once again have a campaign to reduce the speed limit on that stretch of road, rather than to enforce it (to stop people doing the ton down there as some do) and for a strong education campaign pointing out that the underpasses are frequent, kept clean and free of graffiti, well-lit, do not have a poor crime record and are the safest way to cross. CCTV could perhaps even be added to them.
The Milton Keynes road concept is based around full segregation of pedestrians/cyclists and cars/lorries/buses, and if used properly is both safe and pleasant for both.
Neil
Post edited at 10:45
In reply to Goucho:
Yes your point is valid but before I start provoking the Chief Constable for a response some kind fellow has volunteered to make a few enquirers on my behalf. Should this prove satisfactory then I will be asking his opinion as to the effect of writing a letter of complaint to the CC outlining the wasted time and resources of the letter. Perhaps the CC needs to review the NIT notifications so it doesn't make his jurisdiction look petty.
Update to follow.
Yes your point is valid but before I start provoking the Chief Constable for a response some kind fellow has volunteered to make a few enquirers on my behalf. Should this prove satisfactory then I will be asking his opinion as to the effect of writing a letter of complaint to the CC outlining the wasted time and resources of the letter. Perhaps the CC needs to review the NIT notifications so it doesn't make his jurisdiction look petty.
Update to follow.
In reply to off-duty:
Not the issue. All the accidents considered in these reports have been judged to have a range of causes and these are reflected in the figures. Many accidents will indeed have greater consequences because of greater energy and momentum which in turn partly result from greater speed. Remember of course that cars have doubled in weight and trucks have increased in weight by over 80% in my lifetime. A tiny minority will be less severe because speed allowed a driver to take swifter avoiding action. In one recent year, the DfT report showed that the top two primary causes that I mention accounted for 57% of accident involving death or serious injury. Don't waste your time typing anything that suggests that's not significant. The list top ten causes that was provided always had the same top two and never included exceeding the speed limit. Exceeding the speed limit was found deeper in the report with a small single figure per cent number against it. I do not remember if it was listed as a primary or other cause but in any case it's lack of significance was striking.
When I was little, in the 1960s, my friends had heros who were film stars or footballers. Sean Connery, Steve McQueen, John Greig, Denis Law, Pele, Lisbon Lions. My heros, apart from Jim Clark of course, were the guys from the traffic department of Inverness County Constabulary. I'd see them sweeping out of the Castle in their Jags and Rovers with the sirens on heading for something dreadful. How demeaning for their successors have to spend their time sitting with a laser gun at the edge of an empty dual carriageway (designed for a 50 limit but now 30) in the middle of the night waiting for the next victim of pointless state wickedness. Or, on the A9 on a quiet Saturday, detecting two 60 year old drivers with clean records who were driving up the A9 with the cruise control set to 59mph through an area of road with road works signs stacked neatly at the side of the road but no works taking place. The order for the 30 mph was still in place so they were fined and given points. It looked to me like the lady nearly cried in the JP Court but she managed to hold it together. Do you think she is as proud to be British as she was the day before?
The developed skills of those traffic officers, whether in the 1960s or today, are focussed on the very same aspects of driver skill that are lacking in those 57% of serious accidents. They are amongst the most skilled persons in the world in that field. They are the ideal people to help British motorists to improve in those areas and to allow perhaps another 1000 people a year to keep drawing breath. Why are they wasting their time with this speeding rubbish?
======================
"The system of car control is a system or drill each feature of which is considered in sequence by the driver at the approach to any hazard."
======================
This is one of the safest countries in the world to drive in.
The reason for that is difficult to pin down when comparing with some of our neighbours. I am forced to the conclusion that generally people on these islands are responsible and nice to each other. That is so lovely.
How can we enhance that and pull the death rate down even further? Maybe we could lie to everyone about the use of speed in the face of sound evidence pointing out carelessness and poor judgement as the key factors. Is lying likely to work on the British? I tend not to think so. http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/Ex-traffic-cop-hits-out-at-speed-ca...
Even in time of austerity, at over a million pounds on each serious accident, if we are ambitious and aim for a drop of another 1000 road deaths then that is over a billion pounds to spend on some of the finest drivers in the world using their time educating ordinary motorists on hazard procedure.
"Dion is Cuidich"
> Re points 9 and 10 - have you considered that the consequences of accidents are much more severe at speed. Given that careless/dangerous driving offence exists already to prosecute those who are guilty of more than momentary inattention, the difficulty is one of monitoring and preventing that "primary cause". The easy alternative is to try and mitigate the consequences by ensuring speeds are kept within limits.
Not the issue. All the accidents considered in these reports have been judged to have a range of causes and these are reflected in the figures. Many accidents will indeed have greater consequences because of greater energy and momentum which in turn partly result from greater speed. Remember of course that cars have doubled in weight and trucks have increased in weight by over 80% in my lifetime. A tiny minority will be less severe because speed allowed a driver to take swifter avoiding action. In one recent year, the DfT report showed that the top two primary causes that I mention accounted for 57% of accident involving death or serious injury. Don't waste your time typing anything that suggests that's not significant. The list top ten causes that was provided always had the same top two and never included exceeding the speed limit. Exceeding the speed limit was found deeper in the report with a small single figure per cent number against it. I do not remember if it was listed as a primary or other cause but in any case it's lack of significance was striking.
> Re point 12 I take it that is an attempt at humour. You do rather demean yourself by saying it - unless of course you are referring to traffic cops. We all hate them - particularly when they knock on your door to tell you your relative has been in a serious accident. Pah! - they should go out and actually work for a living.
When I was little, in the 1960s, my friends had heros who were film stars or footballers. Sean Connery, Steve McQueen, John Greig, Denis Law, Pele, Lisbon Lions. My heros, apart from Jim Clark of course, were the guys from the traffic department of Inverness County Constabulary. I'd see them sweeping out of the Castle in their Jags and Rovers with the sirens on heading for something dreadful. How demeaning for their successors have to spend their time sitting with a laser gun at the edge of an empty dual carriageway (designed for a 50 limit but now 30) in the middle of the night waiting for the next victim of pointless state wickedness. Or, on the A9 on a quiet Saturday, detecting two 60 year old drivers with clean records who were driving up the A9 with the cruise control set to 59mph through an area of road with road works signs stacked neatly at the side of the road but no works taking place. The order for the 30 mph was still in place so they were fined and given points. It looked to me like the lady nearly cried in the JP Court but she managed to hold it together. Do you think she is as proud to be British as she was the day before?
The developed skills of those traffic officers, whether in the 1960s or today, are focussed on the very same aspects of driver skill that are lacking in those 57% of serious accidents. They are amongst the most skilled persons in the world in that field. They are the ideal people to help British motorists to improve in those areas and to allow perhaps another 1000 people a year to keep drawing breath. Why are they wasting their time with this speeding rubbish?
======================
"The system of car control is a system or drill each feature of which is considered in sequence by the driver at the approach to any hazard."
======================
This is one of the safest countries in the world to drive in.
The reason for that is difficult to pin down when comparing with some of our neighbours. I am forced to the conclusion that generally people on these islands are responsible and nice to each other. That is so lovely.
How can we enhance that and pull the death rate down even further? Maybe we could lie to everyone about the use of speed in the face of sound evidence pointing out carelessness and poor judgement as the key factors. Is lying likely to work on the British? I tend not to think so. http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/Ex-traffic-cop-hits-out-at-speed-ca...
Even in time of austerity, at over a million pounds on each serious accident, if we are ambitious and aim for a drop of another 1000 road deaths then that is over a billion pounds to spend on some of the finest drivers in the world using their time educating ordinary motorists on hazard procedure.
"Dion is Cuidich"
In reply to Neil Williams:
Not just for dual carriageway as I recall. I have seen single carriageway major roads, very similar to the Inverness/Perth A9, in the Netherlands with slip road overpass junctions.
> We also seem, unlike say the Dutch, to be unwilling to enforce things like using underpasses to cross 70mph dual carriageways, only motorways.
Not just for dual carriageway as I recall. I have seen single carriageway major roads, very similar to the Inverness/Perth A9, in the Netherlands with slip road overpass junctions.
Post edited at 13:58
In reply to drsdave:
That's crazy, that is a bit of a hot spot at Tain. I would definitely appeal against this on several grounds! Don't be bullied! I appealed myself an earlier speeding fine without a solicitor and it was successful.
Firstly and most importantly, any measurement made comes with an error, period. Even an atomic clock has an error in its readings. Their speed camera will also have an error, you should find out what it is. FOI could be used for this. Also, your speedo will have an error, of at least 1mph. You can probably find this out form the car manufacturer. The errors of both instruments will most certainly be greater than 1mph, which is why it is nonsensical to try and prosecute someone for 61 in a 60mph zone!
Also worth considering are the road conditions at the time. If it was dry with good visibility, and road conditions allowed it you were entitled to drive at 60mph. Driving at maximum speed with a clear road in good conditions is best practice as you are not impeding the flow of traffic. The Tain bypass also has good visibility for most the junctions.
Good luck with it!
That's crazy, that is a bit of a hot spot at Tain. I would definitely appeal against this on several grounds! Don't be bullied! I appealed myself an earlier speeding fine without a solicitor and it was successful.
Firstly and most importantly, any measurement made comes with an error, period. Even an atomic clock has an error in its readings. Their speed camera will also have an error, you should find out what it is. FOI could be used for this. Also, your speedo will have an error, of at least 1mph. You can probably find this out form the car manufacturer. The errors of both instruments will most certainly be greater than 1mph, which is why it is nonsensical to try and prosecute someone for 61 in a 60mph zone!
Also worth considering are the road conditions at the time. If it was dry with good visibility, and road conditions allowed it you were entitled to drive at 60mph. Driving at maximum speed with a clear road in good conditions is best practice as you are not impeding the flow of traffic. The Tain bypass also has good visibility for most the junctions.
Good luck with it!
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Point taken but I was already certain of one thing, 61 in a 60 doesn't add up.
Point taken but I was already certain of one thing, 61 in a 60 doesn't add up.
In reply to drsdave:
So to conclude this little drama. My solicitor has informed me that the police have written this incident off. I gather it didn't take them long to decide and that an NFA (no further action)has been written against it.
So just to encourage anyone out there being seemingly bossed around by over baring traffic police, contest it you never know
So to conclude this little drama. My solicitor has informed me that the police have written this incident off. I gather it didn't take them long to decide and that an NFA (no further action)has been written against it.
So just to encourage anyone out there being seemingly bossed around by over baring traffic police, contest it you never know
In reply to drsdave:
If it's indeed 61mph in a 60mph zone, I would just not pay and go to court if I were you - or if you can be bothered pay and then appeal it etc, I wouldn't.
I am no lawyer but pretty sure once you go to court someone with a bit of common sense will kick the case out and tell them off for wasting the court's time with this nonsense.
If it's indeed 61mph in a 60mph zone, I would just not pay and go to court if I were you - or if you can be bothered pay and then appeal it etc, I wouldn't.
I am no lawyer but pretty sure once you go to court someone with a bit of common sense will kick the case out and tell them off for wasting the court's time with this nonsense.
In reply to drsdave:
Sorry hadn't seen your last post before posting, glad it was cleared. The police I am sure know full well that they can't waste court's time with non-issues. They just try their luck hoping that some people will just pay without contesting...
Sorry hadn't seen your last post before posting, glad it was cleared. The police I am sure know full well that they can't waste court's time with non-issues. They just try their luck hoping that some people will just pay without contesting...
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Le Toit de Ben - Quebec 1958
This week's Friday Night Video whisks us back to Val-David, Quebec, in the Autumn of 1958. Two daring young climbers embark on the ascent of a route that seemed unattainable, resembling a roof suspended in the air, defying all the conventions of the time....
3 May
Loading Notifications...