speeding

[paul.bower]

let me start by saying that i do not condone speeding and am sure that everyone has at sometime broken the speed limit.

I have just recived a notice of prosecution for 39 in a 30, my vhicle was caught on the A614 @ howden where the road goes from 40 to national in the space of arond 1/2 a mile, the bit that is 30 is just off a roundabout before the national limit, i have wrote back saying we are not sure who was driving at the time and the poor road signs/markings and have recieve a letter not meantioning anything about the signs or markings and a photo and all it shows is the rear of our van. I have not and will never speed when towing and the poor road markings led me to think that it was still 40 before the national speed limit. any one got any advice (apart from the smart a***** who will say pay up & shut up)

Cheers all

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Paul,

There are some websites that make claims about being able to successfully challenge speeding tickets from roadside unmanned cameras. By all means look them up.

There are also some sites that claim that some speed limits do not comply with the regulations about setting them or signing them.

I do not know how successful these sites are or how much you need to pay them to receive the information they claim to have.

Most speed limit permanent road signage does comply with the regulations so I don't really see much hope there.

I suggest you find out who was driving, after all if it is your van then you should know who was driving, and why should you pay for someone else's inconsiderate behaviour. If they are employees such behaviour must be against your safety and employment policies, and of course evasion of a legally brought notice of prosecution is an offence in its self.

Their evasion of the consequences of their actions is after all just as antisocial as the speeding its self.

 

[Gumbo]

Was this a mobile camera or a fixed camera ???

If it was fixed they won't have a front view if it was mobile they may have !!!!!!

39 in a 30 mmm indicated speed in the van of around 43mph ??

You have no option but to pay up "unless" you are willing to pay a very good lawyer to contest your case. Which would only become viable should you already have 9 points.

Sorry but that is the Law

 

[Thorpedo]

Paul

If you are concerned that the signage is incorrect you may have a case.

Please see the details of a case local to me where 150 people were refunded fines -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/5006828.stm
You may be able to dig up the exact signage requirements.

Not that I condone speeding, my next door neighbour was fined and refunded but she drove the route every day for 10 years so had no real excuse for speeding on this dangerous piece of road.

The original 'Starcross 4' were also locals who in all honesty should have known better.

 

[storming_374377034]

I believe speeding is a very bad thing in urban areas and would welcome say a 25 mph speedlimit for example in places my children may be playing or walking. On some roads I think it is perfectly safe to drive up to 120 mph say on empty motorways, assuming your car is in good condition (legally required anyway).

The whole speed camera thing is about stealth tax. Not road safety. I think the entire road safety lobby are making roads more dangerous by placing cameras in dangerous positions, and causing drivers to panic brake. There are many things the government could do to reduce road fatalities far more efective than speed cameras. The 50 mph limit on the m1 roadworks that have taken 2 years is just a cash cow for Gordon Brown to pick our pockets

 

[storming_374377034]

I believe speeding is a very bad thing in urban areas and would welcome say a 25 mph speedlimit for example in places my children may be playing or walking. On some roads I think it is perfectly safe to drive up to 120 mph say on empty motorways, assuming your car is in good condition (legally required anyway).

The whole speed camera thing is about stealth tax. Not road safety. I think the entire road safety lobby are making roads more dangerous by placing cameras in dangerous positions, and causing drivers to panic brake. There are many things the government could do to reduce road fatalities far more efective than speed cameras. The 50 mph limit on the m1 roadworks that have taken 2 years is just a cash cow for Gordon Brown to pick our pockets

Just to add I also think that a modern car with say a BMW 335 for example with z rated tyres, big brakes, asc, abs and so on is I believe safer at 120mph than a morris minor at 70 mph. I say this because most people drove morris minors when they set the 70 mph limit.

 

[rob_jax]

Storming,

The reasons for a 50 mph speed limit in road works are not only to protect the work force, but to allow the maximum traffic flow. A speed of around 50 mph allows the maximum number of cars to pass a point on the road, drive slower or faster and the traffic density reduces - so by forcing people to drive at 50 will make the traffic flow as well as it possibly can...

And working in Holland, with business clients in Germany - then there are still large amounts of unrestricted autobahn - and the high speed accidents look like train wrecks.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing inherently wrong with speed, it only becomes an issue when you come in contact with another road user and then the severity of the collision is all down to speed differentials. And that's why it's sensible to impose speed limits - just to reduce speed differences...

Robert

 

[Thorpedo]

Storming

Although this is a bit removed from the original topic.

Whilst I agree with your comment re reduced speeds in urban areas, I'm afraid I can't agree regarding higher speeds.

Respectfully of course

Although I appreciate that some cars have the capabilities you refer to, they are not immune from a high speed puncture, a fox crossing the rd at the wrong time, or perhaps someone in the middle motorway lane having to pull out suddenly to avoid some other fool dong something stupid.

When something goes wrong at 100mph you may end up in 1 piece in a BMW but what about the 10 year old Citroen or the family you may have just hit and are now in a ditch. They would all stand a much better chance if BMW man was doing 70. He has probably had no more driver training than the rest of us mere mortals.

 

[Rich]

The "we cannot remember who was driving" trick has been done so many times that the Police do not care anymore. They will issue a fine to the registered keeper of the vehicle which is 3 points and a fine of

 

[weejock]

Hi Paul

You now need to right back saying that the photo does not help you to identify the driver therefore you cannot truthfully say who was driving.

You should also ask them that if one of you just takes the points because say they have a clean license will this be a crime and could they please advise as you do not wish to perjure yourself should it be found out later that the person named was not the driver.

Please remember to send the letter recorded delivery.

 

[RogerP]

Hi Paul

I think you're on a hiding to nothing. I dont think the 'didn't know who was driving' holds water any longer.

You only otion is to prove that the signage at the given point was either wrong or unsatifactory. For that you'd have to revist the area and take photos measurements etc etc to prove the point.

Then contest the fine in court all of which is going to cost you. Is it really worth it.?

As an aside are you a member of RAC or AA as they will offer you free legal advice as members , and is there's a case will also represent you.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Whilst Paul has not stated he was driving when the offence was committed he alludes to it in the later part of his posting. If the letter saying he doesn't know who was driving is a deliberate attempt to evade prosecution, which seems to be the consensus of opinion of most of the correspondence, then he is deluding himself and devaluing the whole of society. To make such a claim in court is purgery.

On the other hand, if the notice to prosecute has been issued illegally because the position and signage does not conform to the required regulations, then he should contest it. There is a point of principal at stake. If a prosecution is made where there is no case to answer, then the powers that be need to be brought book.

We have too many organisations that can now impose penalties on members of the public, without furnishing conclusive evidence or having the evidence scrutinised by our judicial system. Under such conditions there is an increasing chance that evidence has not been obtained correctly, or adequately corroborated.

Where the gathering of such evidence in the course of normal work that has been passed to private companies (Such as parking and clamping) there is an undeniable swell of opinion that employees are expected to meet quota's or how else do these companies make money?

Which ever is truth its in Paul's hands.

 

[Steve L]

Now first of all, I must state that I do not condone either speeding or any form trying to dodge ownership of resposability.

BUT!

I do think that some speed limits have been imposed on roads that "inadvertantly" entrap drivers these days.

I drove back from Gloucester via Ledbury last night and that road is a night mare. There are 50mph limits on pieces of road followed by 40Mph, then 30Mph then 50Mph!! There is probably only 10% of the rural main road with a national speed limit on it. Also the 50Mph repeater signs are so few and far between, you realy can't be sure if your still in a speed limited zone.

Of coarse you can spot the little lay by's for the patrol cars on the side of the road. These are craftily positioned so that the patrol car is parked in a hidden dip!!

May be if the police actually started to educate the bad driver and be seen to be "working", rather than hiding behind spurious cameras which fuel the revenue pockets, then the average motorist might just be a little more respectfull of law.

I was knocked of my cycle last week by a hit and run driver. Now because I was more interested in saving my life than reading the number plate of the car coming straight at me with main beam on, the police can't won't do anything about it. Not even a piece in the local paper asking for witnesses despite there being 4 or 5 cars on the road at the time. Or even going to the spot and stopping every blue 206 with a loud exhaust between 6-30 and 7am the next couple of days to see who has lost a drivers door mirror and got dents in the door. On this particular road that would mean may be 5 cars!!

How hard is that to do.

Steve L.

 

[rayc]

Speed cameras are sited on the safest roads. One of the criteria for authorisisng them to be located at a certain location is that 85% of drivers are exceeding the limit. If 85% of drivers perceive that the limit islow for a certain location then it propably is. It will also be located at a position that meets the technical requirements e.g.straight roads with good visibility and not on sweeping bends etc.

The camera will not be positioned where there is minimal transgression of the spped limit, it could not be justified.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Steve,

I am sorry to read of your incident, I do hope that you didn't suffer any serious injury.

I don't believe that speed limits are being introduced to deliberately trap drivers, but I think that there are too many new pressure groups or reasons that planners use to set lower speed limits.

I tend to agree with you that there are many instances where major roads are littered with speed limit changes, and perhaps more importantly there are few repeaters to remind drivers. And some limits don't seem to make logical sense.

I have heard ( I think on this forum) that it costs about

 

[Auvergne]

I received a

 

[trevgib]

Gatso's(road side camera) are run mainly by councils not the police and is a way of raising funds not stopping speeders they are always set at a low speed so are the ones to look out for and watch.

 

[Chrisbee]

Gatsos are always set above the speed limit. Providing you drive within the law you don't have to "look out for them". I'm not saying I agree with blanket speed limits or speed cameras, just that they are one of many ways of enforcing the law of the land. I doubt if anyone agrees with all laws but unfortunately if we break them we have to accept the consequences.

Before some smart alec says it,'blanket speed limits' has nothing to do with fast moving bedding!

 

[Happy-Lappy]

I have been 'Flashed' by a speed camera doing 36mph in a 30mph limit, this was on the A37 at Guerney Slade.

It's the fisrt (and hopefully last) time in 30yrs of driving, I will be going on the Speed Awareness course they have offered, as I do not want the 3 penalty points.

Must pay more attention in future,

best regards, Martin

 

[ScouseIan]

Now first of all, I must state that I do not condone either speeding or any form trying to dodge ownership of resposability.

BUT!

I do think that some speed limits have been imposed on roads that "inadvertantly" entrap drivers these days.

I drove back from Gloucester via Ledbury last night and that road is a night mare. There are 50mph limits on pieces of road followed by 40Mph, then 30Mph then 50Mph!! There is probably only 10% of the rural main road with a national speed limit on it. Also the 50Mph repeater signs are so few and far between, you realy can't be sure if your still in a speed limited zone.

Of coarse you can spot the little lay by's for the patrol cars on the side of the road. These are craftily positioned so that the patrol car is parked in a hidden dip!!

May be if the police actually started to educate the bad driver and be seen to be "working", rather than hiding behind spurious cameras which fuel the revenue pockets, then the average motorist might just be a little more respectfull of law.

I was knocked of my cycle last week by a hit and run driver. Now because I was more interested in saving my life than reading the number plate of the car coming straight at me with main beam on, the police can't won't do anything about it. Not even a piece in the local paper asking for witnesses despite there being 4 or 5 cars on the road at the time. Or even going to the spot and stopping every blue 206 with a loud exhaust between 6-30 and 7am the next couple of days to see who has lost a drivers door mirror and got dents in the door. On this particular road that would mean may be 5 cars!!

How hard is that to do.

Steve L.

I would shame them. Go to that spot yourself and find the car. Also, look at an alternative route that the driver may now be taking.

Follow them, take photos, get a PI, and a solicitor, and sue them.

 

[ScouseIan]

Get a 'road angel plus' and keep it up to date. Then you will always know where the speed cameras are and also the mobile cameras. This unit will remind anybody who haas missed it what the speed is as they approach the area in question.

It also detects laser and radar.

All legal

Settings allow for blackspots and school alerts.

The cost of this device is paid for by saving yourself just 1 incident

 

[KnL]

Ian,

This section of the forum is entitled "Towing, driving and safety".

If a driver is continually driving in such a manner and with obvious disregard to the speed limits, to the point that they need 'road angel' equipment to remind them of what speed limit they are in, then they're not driving safely.

Don't lose sight of the fact that, no matter how much the vendors wrap this equipment up as a safety item, they were introduced and are mainly used by prolific speeders.

This type of motorist is a dangerous and habitual offender who rarely drives legally and sees their "safety" equipment as their personal protection from prosecution and they are the first to whinge when they are caught by other means.

As Chrisbee said above, if you are driving within the law, you don't have to look out for speed cameras and I would add that if some drivers slowed down a bit, they wouldn't miss the speed restriction signs and our roads would be that little bit safer for those of us who chose to drive legally.

 

[Dustydog]

Paul started this thread. His vehicle, driver unknown, went through a very poorly placed 30 mph zone at 39mph.

No chance of defending this one. This is the local authorities way of bolstering their income at the expense of the poor motorist. This amoral practice of deliberately catching decent drivers has gone on for years by strategic placement of camers where they know there is ambiguity in the legal mph.

I'd like to know who the to$$er$ are that think up such evil ideas. Will they stand up and be counted??

Cheers

Alan

 

[KnL]

Paul started this thread. His vehicle, driver unknown, went through a very poorly placed 30 mph zone at 39mph.

No chance of defending this one. This is the local authorities way of bolstering their income at the expense of the poor motorist. This amoral practice of deliberately catching decent drivers has gone on for years by strategic placement of camers where they know there is ambiguity in the legal mph.

I'd like to know who the to$$er$ are that think up such evil ideas. Will they stand up and be counted??

Cheers

Alan

Hello Alan,

I don't have personal knowledge of the area Paul refers to, so I can only generalise.

I didn't want to repeat what others have already said about the signage that kicked this topic off, but if Paul proves the signage to be poor then he has a proper defence to the speeding and needs to have the matter heard at Court. In the event of winning, the Court could issue an order to have the signs improved.

If the signage is proven not to be poor then the speeding allegation is likely to be proven by the Court, which has nothing to do with the local authority.

The Court will also pay cognisance to the fact that there may be other indicators to a motorist, that they are in a 30 limit and that a careful and considerate driver should also take heed of those.

 

[Meister]

Just a couple of thoughts:

Ken (Durham): I agree wholeheartedly with your comments which have been well made.

Alan: When you say "......there is ambiguity in the legal mph...."

The area mentioned originally was a 30mph restriction, and as all competent careful drivers know, in a built up area and/or an area with street lighting the speed limit is always 30mph unless there are signs showing otherwise. So the fact the a 30mph sign is not clear does not really give support to a speeders defence does it.