|
Would two measurements over the limit within 10 m of each other mean you should get a double conviction then?
|
|
I assume this road, like the A9(T), is very busy, mixed traffic and with an appalling record for accidents.
As RobJP says ASCs calculate your speed sequentially between adjacent cameras. If only end to end offenders were caught those travelling less than the full distance could speed with impunity.
A multiple offender would have option of going to court to plead mitigation as to why he should not be multiply convicted and/or not immediately disqualified. People caught sequentailly by fixed cameras, or the same ones both ways, have sucessfully made a case for such mitigation.
Not something to try for yourself - you'd need a good traffic lawyer.
|
|
The issue of multiple convictions for (what might arguably be) a single occurrence of speeding is not clear cut. Drivers have successfully argued that being captured two or three times by normal static cameras (i.e. not average speed cameras) on a single trip amounts to one continuous offence. Others have not. It depends on a multitude of factors and each case, if it goes to court, is considered on its individual merits. There is no hard and fact rule. A general rule of thumb is that if you can convince the court that your speeding was continuously in excess of the limit then you might be successful. Less likely of success is if there has been a change of limit between the two captures of if it is likely you have slowed down for any other reason (and so had to speed up again).
Average speed cameras introduce further problems again not covered by any rules. If your average speed exceeds the limit over a distance of a few miles there is no way you could argue that you did not exceed the limit at some point. But you may have maintained a steady (illegal) speed for the entire stretch or you may have travelled at an excessively fast speed for just a short stretch.
|
|
What is it with average speed camers and drivers in this country, what is so difficult to understand. The M1 from Nottingham to Leeds has them pretty much all the way as does the A9 from Perth to Aviemore. A high proportion of drivers simply ignore the 70 mph limit (or lower limit displayed) and simply stand on the brakes at each camera. Some are probably just stupid (for which there is no cure) but I would expect those who drive expensive new BMW's and Merc's to have jobs that required an understanding of simple english words of which "average" is a good example.
If the ones in the Sheffield area of the M1 are really switched on and recording speed most drivers should have enough Argos points to get a new 4K TV every few weeks. Most afternoons its 50 or 60 mph on the gantrys but only a tiny minority obey them. In fact its f***** dangerous to do 50 mph since its inevitable you will have a 40 tonne artic in your boot flashing its lights.
Its time the Police took action and gave anyone over the agreed tolerence the fine and points appropriate. If they are repeat offenders on successive days perhaps a long ban would be a good idea.
And anyone trying to get out of the fine/points/ban on any grounds should have the penlty doubled.
|
If they are repeat offenders on successive days perhaps a long ban would be a good idea.
And anyone trying to get out of the fine/points/ban on any grounds should have the penlty doubled.
Neither of which is possible without a drastic change to to sentencing guidelines.
Edited by Middleman on 01/07/2018 at 23:14
|
Neither of which is possible without a drastic change to to sentencing guidelines.
Doubled penalties for unsucessful appeals would also have a massive chilling effect on those with potentially credible cases. I suspect such law would be susceptible to successful challenge under the Human Rights Act.
|
|
|
And anyone trying to get out of the fine/points/ban on any grounds should have the penlty doubled.
People are allowed to defend themselves for hevens sake! We don't live in a totalitarian state yet.
|
And anyone trying to get out of the fine/points/ban on any grounds should have the penlty doubled.
People are allowed to defend themselves for hevens sake! We don't live in a totalitarian state yet.
If you go faster than the average speed what defense could someone have out of interest?
|
|
"If you go faster than the average speed what defense could someone have out of interest?"
Defence: the speed recorded was incorrect and the accuracy of the equipment used is challenged.
Mitigation: the driver caught was taking a seriously ill person to hospital.
In any case, I don't know why we're getting all steamed up about one of Skidpan's little rants, the details of which are not worth taking seriously.
Edited by FP on 02/07/2018 at 15:04
|
"If you go faster than the average speed what defense could someone have out of interest?"
Defence: the speed recorded was incorrect and the accuracy of the equipment used is challenged.
Mitigation: the driver caught was taking a seriously ill person to hospital.
In any case, I don't know why we're getting all steamed up about one of Skidpan's little rants, the details of which are not worth taking seriously.
Equipment is calibrated, there is no defense
Seriously ill person should be transported by ambulance, no defense
It might be a rant but you all know I am correct. Breaking the speed limit is breaking the law. You would not defend a burglar or a murderer which are also cases of breaking the law so why defend a speeder, as we all know speed can kill.
|
|
The law is usually quite comples.
Anyone interested in the application of the law, especially speeding, will probably find The Art of the Loophole by Nick Freeman worth reading. Not concerned with the ethics but technical application.
I have sometimes been criticized for my hard views about speeding. However the book includes some cases which are arguably not the offenders fault. Very readable, not an academic tome.
|
|
Sometimes people should stop digging. No, Skidpan, you are not correct.
A quick Google search brings up the following regarding how to deal with alleged speeding offences:
“Mitigating circumstances can include specific reasons for speeding including medical emergencies.” (tinyurl.com/y85rwpsm)
“Common legal defences for UK speeding fines
• The NIP has incorrect details about the nature, time, or location of the alleged offence. (Spelling mistakes or typos don’t count.)
• The alleged speeder wasn’t driving when the offence took place – for a variety of reasons.
• The road signage for speed limits was missing or incorrect.
• The speed measuring equipment had not been calibrated or was being misused.”
(tinyurl.com/z3khp9n)
I make no comment about the value of such mitigation or defence - I'm simply saying they are available and, if relevant, could be used in court.
Edited by FP on 02/07/2018 at 18:45
|
|
As far as I am concerned only the scum of the earth would not put their hand up and admit to something as clear as a speeding conviction.
Its simple, you were either driving at or below the limit or above it. If above it you are guilty, no defence, simple as that.
People should man up and accept that their actions have had a consequence.
For the record we have speeding issues on the road where I live. In the past 2 years there have been 3 serious accidents which have resulted in serious injuries and 5 written off cars. Make that 6 if you include my neighbours car that was hit by a motorcycle whilst waiting to pull into his drive. The motorcyclist ran to his bike, got on it and rode off, false plate, lucky sod was not caught. Neighbours car was an uneconomic repair.
Last November we had a public meeting with councillors and the Police. We all want cameras and a speed survey was carried out earlier this year on ours and the 2 other roads that form the "circuit" to obtain info. Still waiting for the results.
The first accident was 2 youths in a Corsa seeing how fast they could get round the corner at the bottom of the road, a friend of mine was a witness living close to the corner. First 2 attempts were sucessful, on the 3rd the driver lost it, hit the pedestrian barriers destroying them which ripped the engine from the Corsa. The engine continued and hit a camper van which then caught fire. My friend was first on the scene and the passeneger was off up the road on his Nike's. The driver was not as lucky and was trapped screaming for an ambulance. my friend told him he would call for the Police and a fire engine to attend to the camper and let them decide if an ambulance was required. He told him to think about what he had done whilst he was waiting.
The Police told my friend that they could not support his actions but off the record one officer commended him. Don't know if I would have had the balls to leave someone trapped in a car.
Never saw the case in the local papers. Presumably the CPS decided not to prosecute, we all know how wonderful they are.
|
|
In my area there are some cameras installed just a few yards inside a 30 limit.
The logic of this may be that approaching the 30 sign at the legal 40, many drivers will lift of the accelerator and brake gently, but a number will still be over the limit as the camera clocks them, so a good chance of increased revenue. (I should add that roadside trees obscure at least one of these cameras which is sited on a downhill left hand bend.)
The question is,is the aim to deter speeding or generate cash from it?
Cameras and speed limits are supposed to be justified by frequency/severity of accidents. I suspect these statistics are interpreted so as to extend lower limits to wider areas/ lengths of roads than are genuinely necessary.
Local Authority political policies have an influence on this, of course, I have seen noticeable differences between two neighbouring Council areas regarding limits and number of cameras.
|
The question is,is the aim to deter speeding or generate cash from it?
Neither. The aim is to catch drivers breaking the law (in the same way as police officers aim to do when hiding in the bushes outside a house they believe will be burgled). Of course, knowledge that one may be caught speeding may eventually act as a deterrent but judging from the numbers of people caught speeding it seems probably not.
Edited by Middleman on 03/07/2018 at 13:22
|
|
When drivers flash on-comming cars to warn of a speed trap they can be convicted of perverting the course of justice or obstruction or similar.
I wonder if rather than driving around slowly for safety's sake, I take the view to drive slowly because there may be speed cameras around, will I be done for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice? :-)
The speedlimits in this country are mad. Surely if your car can stop you in the set distance of 315 feet (96m) set for 70mph and your car can do this at 95+ then why isn't it safe to drive at 95?
It's lazy law making, lazy road design and lazy policing for lane blockers etc.
And speed kills is madness. I have been at Mach 2 and am still alive and have driven at 120+ on unrestricted German motorways and survived.
Inappropriate speed on the other hand should be punished.
|
Inappropriate speed on the other hand should be punished.
It is...that's why roads have limits. If you go above the limit you can be punished.
Why would you need to drive slowly? Just drive according to condition and no faster than the limit on that piece of road. It's not hard or difficult.
If someone is stealing a pair of shoes and you warn them that a secuirty guard is on his way is that any different from flashing your lights to warn of a speed trap?
|
|
I don't see a problem with limits. It's just that many are out of date.
You see do-gooders reducing limits to 20MPH on numerous roads, needed or not. Or on an A road near me, from NSL to a hotchpotch of different limits, making you watch the limit rather than watching the road.
You don't see anyone increasing the limit on an accident free stretches of road or indeed, on motorways, where with variable limits could easily allow up to say 90MPH when the roads are clear.
|
Surely if your car can stop you in the set distance of 315 feet (96m) set for 70mph and your car can do this at 95+ then why isn't it safe to drive at 95?
What a peculiar stretch of logic!
By that reasoning, higher performace cars (which presumably have better brakes) should be allowed to travel faster than slower cars. The limit for each should be determined by the speed they can come to a stop from in 315 feet. Utter nonsense. More than that the 315 feet you quote is not the "set distance" needed to stop a car from 70mph. It is a typical minimum distance required and is dependent on multiple factors many of them often outside the control of the driver. And I haven't even begun to mention other inconvenient things such as other road users not being blessed with you 20/20 vision and perfect reaction times.
I, too, have travelled at Mach2 (in an English Electric Lightning, somewhat less comfortable - but far more exciting - than in Concorde). I too am still here to tell the tale. And that is apropos nothing at all as far as this debate goes. Meanwhile my cousin had a near fatal motorbike accident a few years back. He was travelling at an "appropriate" 105mph on the A14 (from which no doubt he could come to a stop in 315 feet or less) when a silly sod in a Volvo Estate pulled out from a side road in front of him. He (just) lived to tell the tale but had he been travelling at 70mph he may have spent a little less than ten weeks in hospital and may not have lost one of his two lungs.
Speed limits are a compromise and it cannot be left to individuals to determine what the maximum appropriate speed is for them.
Edited by Middleman on 03/07/2018 at 15:39
|
|
Originally speed limits were introduced for safety. Nowadays speed limits are arbitrary and have only changed downwards in recent years despite the huge advances in car safety and better road designs.
Variable speedlimits are now used to cut pollution and not accidents.
We are living in a mad world where we have the capabilty to go faster but are kept dawdling along. You even get it with airlines that keep their planes at slower speeds to save fuel costs. Whats the point in spending £10's of millions on a jet liner if they are going to skimp on the cost of fuel. I wouldn't mind paying a few £100 more to get where I'm going a bit quicker.
|
Some of the arguments here beggar belief. I’ll paraphrase.
Speed limits are too low and I should be allowed to drive faster because my car is capable of doing high speeds
Going faster and using more finite resources to do so is preferable to travelling at the economical design speed of (in this case) an aircraft.
I’ve travelled at high speed and didn’t die so it’s always safe to do so.
The sort of selfish, self-justification that characterises modern Britain. I’m so busy, can’t let anyone else get in the way, I’m so important, what I’m doing is so important etc...
Wake up. Speed limits will fall. They will be better enforced. Driving is a privilege that is licensed not a right that is taken with no responsibility.
No one in commercial life has a role that is so important or critical that it’s worth endangering others. Most people who constantly claim they are busy are just trying self-justify their own importance.
That’s it from me. Bye.
|
Originally speed limits were introduced for safety. Nowadays speed limits are arbitrary and have only changed downwards in recent years despite the huge advances in car safety and better road designs.
There has been no corresponding improvement in human eyesight or reaction times. Neither have the rules of Newtonian physics changed. In the meantime there's far greater volume of traffic. While a few new roads are better designed many others have same alignments, bends and narrow bridges they had in era of horse and cart.
Variable speedlimits are now used to cut pollution and not accidents.
And? Do you want your kids breathing in Nox and particulates?
|
|
>>English Electric Lightning flight
Where did you do that?
In 1971 a Lightning landed @ Dahran airport but the pilot forgot to lower the wheels.
Quickest ever delivery of spare parts!
|
The driver was not as lucky and was trapped screaming for an ambulance. my friend told him he would call for the Police and a fire engine to attend to the camper and let them decide if an ambulance was required. He told him to think about what he had done whilst he was waiting.
In another forum I use that sort of anecdote gets the response 'cool story bro'. If it is true your friend should have been prosecuted. Did he know the youth hadn't sustained internal injuries and was not bleeding to death?
Never saw the case in the local papers. Presumably the CPS decided not to prosecute, we all know how wonderful they are.
You don't see much in local papers. The days when every local rag had a reporter stationed at the local Magistrates are long gone. The danger there is with no reporting the magistrates become a bit less accountable.
|
>>English Electric Lightning flight
Where did you do that?
Took off from RAF Coltishall then out over the North Sea. Coltishall was home to a Lightning Operational Conversion Unit, training pilots who were qualified on other (considerably slower) fast jets. I flew in a T5 two seat (side by side) trainer. To be pedantically frank the T5 was not quite capable of Mach 2 (as far as I can recall) though we got quite close at >1,000 knots at around 50,000 feet. Fast enough for me! A similar flight at "Thunder City" (South Africa) before it ceased operations about eight years ago would have cost around £10k.My flight cost me nothing.
Happy (and exhilerating) days (but we digress - considerably!).
Edited by Middleman on 04/07/2018 at 00:35
|
>>English Electric Lightning flight
Where did you do that?
I remember in the 70's flying to Paris 1 christmas from Heathrow, with Turkish airlines in a 707 and sat in the co-pilots seat for landing. passengers, 1 turkish diplomat and his guard..
Bernard Haddigan who flew from jersey in the mid 70's and once came out of the office to fly a plane himself because a pilot was concerned about fog...... Once gave me a lift in a twin engined cessna fro jerey to cardiff and made the steepest descent into an airfield that i have ever experienced...
AH,, the good ol' days..
|
|
|
|
