55 in a 30 limit!

[SimpleSi]

Lets not have a war on the rights/wrongs of speeding/getting off on technicalities. as everyone has different moral viewpoints (imagine someone who lost a loved one due to someone speeding or someone who lost their job due to speeding)

 

My daughter should be punished but I'm hoping for some lenincy due to nature of offence (she wasn't doing 55 through middle of the high street) and lack of funds to pay a big fine.

 

But if she ends up in front of Judge Dredd then so be it

 

Si

[localzuk]

Remember - nothing is 'automatic' in our courts. The judge has absolute leeway to give exceptions to the guidelines when sentencing.

 

So, Trapper, your sister in law could argue that a ban would overly damage her life - as she wouldn't be able to get to and from work at all - there are many cases where a judge has been lenient and allowed the person who sped to keep their license (much to the Daily Mail's distress). This basically down to the Human Rights Act, where all crimes and laws have to be read with the HRA being followed too.

 

It isn't necessarily that any speeders should get away with it, but the punishment should be proportional. Someone speeding in a town centre or village? Lock em up I say, its ridiculously dangerous. Speeding as you're exiting a speed limit zone, where in my experience 95% of the zone edge is arbitrarily far away from the residential area etc... and I don't see it as such a serious thing.

Edited September 8, 2011 by localzuk

[mac_shinobi]

Will people please stop suggesting ways to try and get out of it! If you break the law then you should expect to "pay the price" for your actions. Speeding is Speeding and the only way around this is to not speed. People seem to see this as a non crime (like littering, being on the phone while driving etc etc.) They are all crimes and if you are caught then you should accept the punishment. In a school if a child is caughting misbehaving they are punished, if an adult is caught we try to get out of it on a technicality (which is wrong).

 

You break the law and are caught - you should accept the punishment issued!

 

Agree with this assuming like mentioned above that the punishment / consequences are fair for the crime committed.

[JoeBloggs]

On paper for that speed is looks to me like a court trip, 6 points, a fine, and license revoked.

 

She can plead exceptional hardship - which if it damages her life e.g. get sacked from job and would end up on job seekers etc. But if she is a student I doubt this will happen.

 

Also someone said their friend did 110 and didn't get banned. Must of been lucky... I thought it you did over 100mph it was an instant ban. Maybe someone can clarify.

 

I have been caught speeding at more than 100 mph on the motorway. Is a ban automatic?

Although the Police attempt to resolve most offences by way of a Fixed Penalty Notice, at excessive speeds, a Court appearance is inevitable. For speeds in excess of 100 mph (or more than 30 miles above the relevant limit) the punishment starts at disqualification as opposed to penalty points. However, the decision is at the discretion of the Court and in certain circumstances, a disqualification can be avoided.

Edited September 8, 2011 by JoeBloggs

[SteveBentley]

It does seem like putting a van so close to a 30 to 60 increase could be almost entrapment.

[Andrew_C]

If she gets a summons, then she really needs to attend. My step-mother (used to race Anglias as a yoof) got stopped going far, far too fast. Magistrates asked if there was a reason not to ban her. She (not pre-meditated) said she had two kids and an old father... Fine and points, but no ban.

 

Sounds like an "I just accelerated too early, really sorry..." might save her skin. Might also be worth checking that any required repeaters are there, and not overgrown. Could have the case thrown out if they are not up to standard.

[difinity]

Over 100mph isn't an automatic ban, a rep friend of mine got clocked at 100 overtaking. Wrote a letter to the court admitting guilt and his stupidity and explaining he was overtaking some lorries. Explained he traveled 1000s of miles each year and had a clean license. He got points and a fine but no ban.

[Jamman960]

If I remember correctly if your doing 21 or less mph over the limit you get a fixed penalty, anything over is a court summons. The fine is based on the drivers financial status.

 

I got done for doing 98 on the M25 back when I was a little less careful than I am now... 4 points and a £170 fine. Had a court summons - didn't have to appear unless I wanted to plead innocent & fight it and had to detail my income, savings and expenditure along with any statement I wanted to make to help my case.

 

James

[Andrew_C]

You don't have to attend, but doing so might persuade the magistrate that you take the summons seriously.

[jamesb]

I believe there is previous president in place over how near the police/camera can be to a change in speed limit. If they are too close then it can be thrown out. AFAIK there was a case where a driver argued that they were accelerating towards the speed limit so that they were not causing an obstruction on the road. You can equally get a fine for driving to slowly on the roads.

 

That argument doesn't sound particularly likely - it's always been quite clear that you accelerate after you pass the speed limit marker, not towards it. Trying to get the case thrown out on a loophole sounds like a much less likely plot than trying to get the penalty lessened by being apologetic, pointing out that she's been perfectly safe up to now, that it was a fairly reasonable mistake, not in a risky area, and that losing her license would have a huge impact on her life - disproportionate to the crime.

 

It does seem like putting a van so close to a 30 to 60 increase could be almost entrapment.

 

Why? You're not meant to be accelerating towards the speed limit sign. I could understand potential entrapment if it were just past a sign and people had trouble slowing down, but just before a sign people should not be accelerating to match the speed shown.

[SteveBentley]

Because they're putting a van there to catch people doing something which is a very common driving technique and which is in most cases quite safe - the characteristics of the road a few hundred feet before an NSL sign are usually identical to the conditions after the sign, the sign is where it is for that reason because they know people will put their foot down a little earlier than they technically should.

 

It's a cynical ploy to catch people doing something which is technically wrong, but almost universally done. If they want to convince people that speed cameras are really safety cameras they ought to be using them in areas where excessive speed is a safety problem, not for petty technical infringements like this.

[Guest Guest]

It's a cynical ploy to catch people doing something which is technically wrong, but almost universally done. If they want to convince people that speed cameras are really safety cameras they ought to be using them in areas where excessive speed is a safety problem, not for petty technical infringements like this.

 

 

Said it before but I'll say it again. I am yet, in 6 years of driving, to see a speed camera outside a school, or infact any area where kids are likely to be; park, youth club, sports centre etc. The closest I've seen is one a few hundred yards away from a school at 2pm, and it was gone before the kids finished - If that isn't proof beyond any doubt that they are simply money making devices then I don't know what is.

[MK-2]

 

It's a cynical ploy to catch people doing something which is technically wrong, but almost universally done..

 

But then by that argument you could say that if everybody in the UK drove with a mobile phone in their hands, its a cynical ploy to catch them because technically its wrong but almost universally done.

 

If the law says that after that sign it is xMPH and you do that speed before the sign and get caught, that is the law, whether liked or not.

[ZeroHour]

My sister in law now has six points, after passing four months ago.

 

For the first it was doing 36 in a 30. Why? Her Dad (ex-science teacher - get the bashing in!) told her the sat nav speedo is more accurate than the ONE PLUGGED INTO THE BLOODY WHEELS! So she got done for that.

 

Last week she jumped a light a second too late in the "Well it's amber so I'll keep going" and it was one of those that takes a nice photo.

 

I assume she's looking at loosing her nice new license? Worst thing being she's just started her NQT year, at a school 30 miles away!

 

@Trapper just a heads up: New Drivers Act FAQ | Driving Ban, Licence Revoked, Licence Revocation

According to that she has instantly lost her license even if they have not notified her.

 

FYI generally (at least up in Scotland) they only put mobile vans where there is likely to be breaches and there has been reports of speeding/dangerous driving, its not a *out to get you* thing.

Edited September 8, 2011 by ZeroHour

[MK-2]

 

Said it before but I'll say it again. I am yet, in 6 years of driving, to see a speed camera outside a school, or infact any area where kids are likely to be; park, youth club, sports centre etc. The closest I've seen is one a few hundred yards away from a school at 2pm, and it was gone before the kids finished - If that isn't proof beyond any doubt that they are simply money making devices then I don't know what is.

 

I agree, they are money making devices, but then the argument could also be if everybody drove to the letter of the law and didn't speed, there would be no income for these devices and they would be removed

[witch]

Trying to get the case thrown out on a loophole sounds like a much less likely plot than trying to get the penalty lessened by being apologetic, pointing out that she's been perfectly safe up to now, that it was a fairly reasonable mistake, not in a risky area, and that losing her license would have a huge impact on her life - disproportionate to the crime.

 

Agree - this is the best route to take IMHO

 

Said it before but I'll say it again. I am yet, in 6 years of driving, to see a speed camera outside a school, or infact any area where kids are likely to be; park, youth club, sports centre etc. The closest I've seen is one a few hundred yards away from a school at 2pm, and it was gone before the kids finished - If that isn't proof beyond any doubt that they are simply money making devices then I don't know what is.

We have two cameras, one each side of the road, set up within 100yds of the local middle school gates - and there are two on the main road through the next village where children going to 4 different schools walk, as well as a 20mph limit next to the local first school. So there ARE some in the correct places.

[SteveBentley]

But then by that argument you could say that if everybody in the UK drove with a mobile phone in their hands, its a cynical ploy to catch them because technically its wrong but almost universally done.

 

If the law says that after that sign it is xMPH and you do that speed before the sign and get caught, that is the law, whether liked or not.

 

You're comparing apples with oranges. The phone thing is a clear safety issue, putting a mobile van out to catch people who speed up slightly too early is a money making exercise.

[MK-2]

You're comparing apples with oranges. The phone thing is a clear safety issue, putting a mobile van out to catch people who speed up slightly too early is a money making exercise.

 

Call them apples, call them oranges but both are illegal. Just because most of us don't drive holding a phone but have probably sped up before a speed change sign doesn't make it any less illegal

[CAM]

Phone's and speeding up n a clear stretch of road for a speed limit sign are two completely different leagues. It's like saying forgetting to use your indicator to turn at a junction and running a red at a level crossing are equal.

 

No-one is innocent, I highly doubt anyone on here with a licence has never broken a traffic law and at some point have sped up for a post, failed to slow down in time for a post or parked somewhere they shouldn't. There is one post on my drive home that goes 60 to 30, I still miss it out of genuine error.

 

As for 20 zones don't get me started on those. Fair enough during the day near a school, but surely such zones shouldn't be enforced at weekends, school holidays or when there is no chance of any kids going through the gates? Some traffic law lacks common sense.

[pcstru]

putting a mobile van out to catch people who speed up slightly too early is a money making exercise.

 

If it is, then it's making money out of fools and those fools choose to be fools so they should put up with the consequences of that instead of whining as if they are being served up some outrageous injustice. And if they are NOT fools, then they are inattentive idiots who, being incapable of spotting a large speed sign, should have their licences revoked on the spot.

 

Speed limits are set for many reasons, not just safety. Some drivers seem to forget that they share the environment with many other users who all have different requirements. The house near the speed limit sign doesn't want to put up with the extra road noise of a faster car and why should they? The horse riders have every right to expect not to encounter vehicles exceeding the limit before the signs. May complainers seem completely unable to comprehend that there might be any other criteria other than that THEY think it's safe for them.

 

Speed limit signs are placed where they are - if you choose to accelerate beyond the posted limit before you pass them, then take your punishment like a grown-up and stop whining like a baby.

 

[Guest Guest]

Call them apples, call them oranges but both are illegal. Just because most of us don't drive holding a phone but have probably sped up before a speed change sign doesn't make it any less illegal

 

But the law doesn't always have anything to do with safety/etc. If it did mobile phones, handless or not, would be banned full stop. I regulaly get phone calls from people on hands frees where all of a sudden they start talking giberish, then go silent, then follow it with "sorry, there was a [insert obstruction here], what was I saying". How can you possibly consintrate on driving while having a full on convosation with someone? IMO driving with a handsfree is far more dangerous than doing 20% over the limit.

 

Point is just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong. Equally just because its not illegal doesn't make it right.

[MK-2]

Phone's and speeding up n a clear stretch of road for a speed limit sign are two completely different leagues. It's like saying forgetting to use your indicator to turn at a junction and running a red at a level crossing are equal.

 

No-one is innocent, I highly doubt anyone on here with a licence has never broken a traffic law and at some point have sped up for a post, failed to slow down in time for a post or parked somewhere they shouldn't. There is one post on my drive home that goes 60 to 30, I still miss it out of genuine error.

 

As for 20 zones don't get me started on those. Fair enough during the day near a school, but surely such zones shouldn't be enforced at weekends, school holidays or when there is no chance of any kids going through the gates? Some traffic law lacks common sense.

 

I didn't say they were the same severity, but they are both still equally illegal. I myself know there is an area on my drive home where its NSL but 40 uphill to get to it, so by the time i get to the NSL sign I'm over 40. I know that, but if I were fined/penalised for it, I can't blame anyone but myself.

 

as for the 20 zones. does that mean that you should be allowed to do 30 in a 20 zone just because its not a schoolday? so parents should keep kids away from any 20 zone on a weekend because its fair game then?

 

I am not arguing that speed cameras are primarily for money making, but it still doesn't escape the fact that the specified speed limit is the law, despite what we might think about it being safe to speed up before. something doesn't become legal just because we disagree with it or its implementation

[MK-2]

But the law doesn't always have anything to do with safety/etc. If it did mobile phones, handless or not, would be banned full stop. I regulaly get phone calls from people on hands frees where all of a sudden they start talking giberish, then go silent, then follow it with "sorry, there was a [insert obstruction here], what was I saying". How can you possibly consintrate on driving while having a full on convosation with someone? IMO driving with a handsfree is far more dangerous than doing 20% over the limit.

 

i agree, but then the problem is that ANY activity in the car that takes your attention away from the road should be banned. talking to a passenger could be seen as the same distraction as talking on a hands free phone. changing the radio station or volume (if you dont have steering wheel controls). but i do agree that almost all phone use is dangerous to some extent

[Guest Guest]

Agree - this is the best route to take IMHO

 

We have two cameras, one each side of the road, set up within 100yds of the local middle school gates - and there are two on the main road through the next village where children going to 4 different schools walk, as well as a 20mph limit next to the local first school. So there ARE some in the correct places.

 

Have you had anyone knocked over outside the school? Reason I ask is outside ours used to be really dangerous. Central reservation which was falling to bits with 6-7ft bushes on it - kids just popped out from between the bushes. This was apparently the crossing point for upto 1200 pupils! Everyone constantly moaned about it, nothing happened. Kid gets knocked over, the whole lot is ripped out and a new contral reservation with railings, and 2 pelican crossings installed.

 

Why does it take someone to die/get injured before "they" will do anything about it? "They've" obviously got enough money to put cameras up as they are on industrial estates where I live, but ask for one outside a school... That is why I take the attitude towards them that I do

[Guest Guest]

i agree, but then the problem is that ANY activity in the car that takes your attention away from the road should be banned. talking to a passenger could be seen as the same distraction as talking on a hands free phone. changing the radio station or volume (if you dont have steering wheel controls). but i do agree that almost all phone use is dangerous to some extent

 

It is banned. Eating is banned. Lighting a fag is/was proposed to be banned. Touching any electronic device...

 

 

If we lived in a world with people who could make intelligent decisions for themselves we could just leave it all to the discrestion of the police. Women (no offence as its men too but mostly women) talking to their passenger while paying no attention to the road, or looking back at their kids is another one that drives me mad... You shouldn't need a law for each and every little thing, people should be able to understand what is right and wrong for themselves. Talk to your paseenger by all means but look at the road.

 

Anyway I've gone well off topic with my moan lol