Sorry John, I think you'll find that if the fourth NIP comes through she'll be needing a bus pass.
Although I have some sympathy I doubt the magistrates will, they are four different offences even though committed on the same stretch in close order. Would have been a stronger arguement if it had been four cameras in the same stretch of road at the same time.
Unfortunately I think you will find that magistrates will look upon it as proving that she is an unobservant driver having missed the 30 limit signs on four separate occasions and also having missed the lack of 40 repeater signs on those same occasions. They might also argue that if she was that unobservant on four occasions at that one spot then is she as unobservant at other times in other places, and therefore in need of a reminder to be more observant in future?
As I said above, I have sympathy as I'm sure she has had a shock and has probably learnt her lesson but I don't think the court will be, sorry.
Cockle
|
|
Please reassure us that she has told the insurance company about the SP30s (and has funds for the extra premium.)
|
|
Take it on the chin and never assume they don't have film in them , after all she is a regular speeder by the sounds of things, which is fine as long as you don't get caught.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately I think you will find that magistrates will look upon it as proving that she is an unobservant driver having missed the 30 limit signs on four separate occasions and also having missed the lack of 40 repeater signs on those same occasions.
I wonder if I could get these magistrates to park next to the speed camera opposite my workplace, on a 60mph road, and ban all the muppets who, upon seeing the camera, slam their brakes on and go past it at 40?
|
|
|
|
thought the speed limit was 40, inspite of a 30 m.p.h. sign
just curious, but had she a) not seen the sign or b) seen it but thought it didn't actually mean 30?
|
|
|
I think John's friend may deserve more sympathy than she's getting. I often find myself in unfamiliar towns whose suburbs have long stretches of road with no indication of what the speed limnit is. You are supposed to know how far apart the lamp-posts are: below a certain distance apart the limit is 30 mph.
How many of us know what that distance is, let alone estimate it from a moving car?
I suppose the only safe thing to do is to assume 30 mph in anything other than open country unless there are signs saying some other limit.
And there are some places where it can change several times within a few hundred yards - we'd be better off concentrating on the road rather than constantly having to think about what the police state is up to this time.
|
This is where speed cameras let motorists down IMO.
In the old days she would have been caught in a speed trap and pulled over by a patrol car. A discussion would have taken place where she would have been advised of the speed limit and then she would have had every opportunity to heed the warning. In addition she may not have received a fixed penalty ticket and had a waring.
Worst case she would be £60 worse off and have three points, not 9!
You're right, the magistrates may not have sympathy with her, but then again they may. Magistrates are working people like you or me that travel the roads every day just like us, so she may be well advised to seek the advice of a solicitor over this.
She would also be well advised to take a note of what signs there are advising of the speed limit and presence of cameras, since these are supposed to be a deterrant, not a revenue earner.
This is one situation where common sense ought to prevail
I wish her the best of luck.
Hugo
|
Avant-I agree.
I'm sure some hard-nosed people will say its tough that you didn't see the speed limit sign, but if you are in new area, with lots of other street signs (there does appear to be more and more signs these days)you can miss the speed limit sign.
The next problem is that when you have missed the limit sign, what limit is the road-you can't tell easily these days-ok an urban area I would treat as 30mph until I saw otherwise, but an A road can vary from 20mph-60mph.
I find that if I am in this situation and I see a speed camera I have to slow to 40mph and hope for the best.
An occasional speed limit repeater just after a roundabout, junction etc would help enforce the limit and may help reduce accidents.
Some people suggest having the speed limit posted on the back of a speed camers-now that would be useful.
|
Runboy, I think the initaol posting said it is a familiar piece of road to the miscreant but I don't think it would be a good idea to point that out in court!
I agree with you however on the speed limits being posted on or just before cameras as after all, if they are there to educate rather than raise revenue then surely the motorist should be given every opportunity to comly with the limit.
There is a stretch of the A5 around Hinkley which I hadn't driven before until about 6 months ago and since have driven pretty much every working day. There are several speed cameras between where I join ( Lutterworth) and leave (Tamworth) and form several months I was unable to be completely sure of the speed limit for one of the cameras which is near the start of a short dual carriageway approaching a junction.
After several months I concluded it is a 50mph limit because:
The last speed limit posted (about 2.5 miles before) is 50
All the other traffic slows to below 50
Anyone doing below 50 does not get flashed
A car overtook me as wew eneterd the dual carriageway and I lifted off the acce;erator and went through at about 60 and got flashed.
It seems I am not the only one who is not sure of the limit because many mornings the car in front brakes down from 50 to 40 or below as we approach the camera. I have seen several near misses as a result.
I am not saying the camera should not be there as it is approaching a bad junction but it would cause less danger and do it's job much more effectively were the 50 limit posted clearly.
I don't suppose it would raise as much money though!!!!
|
Thanks for all your comments. In answer to the points raised :
Cockle - I fear that you're right. But if a 4th NIP arrives, she will get a solicitor who may be able to plead for no ban. There would be hardship and my friend has no previous convictions in 15 years' driving. Thanks for your sympathetic response.
henry k - Ins co has been told of the first 2 which resulted in an increased premium of £13 per annum. They will be told of the 3rd NIP on Monday.
PatrickO - No, she is not a regular speeder. She is a careful driver and never knowingly exceeds speed limits. But, in my opinion, she doesn't concentrate enough and is not always aware of what's going on around her.
NoWheels - There are 2 30 mph signs, one on each side of the road. She hadn't seen them. She thinks it's because she has driven along this road several times a week for 15 years. I can't understand that - the signs are very clear.
Avant and Hugo - I agree.
runboy & tyre tread - I have the same problem sometimes when on unfamiliar roads especially when trying not to get lost. There are so many signs of all types and when speed limits are constantly changing, it can be difficult to keep track of them. A reminder just before or on the camera would be good.
|
|
|
|
I too have a little sympathy here - had the events occurred at slightly greater intervals she'd have discovered the awful truth before it was too late. Perhaps this story will alert others to the increasing possibility that they may incur mulitple points and be banned over a very short period and before they realise they've done anything wrong (or if they know full well they've been speeding, before they realise they've been caught). Having said that and allowing for the increasing confusion on our roads, when in doubt why not just slow down for a while until either a new limit sign or repeater is spotted? Although there are always some notable or strange situations on certain stretches of road, most of the time it should be apparent whether a 30 limit may apply and, if so, why not just drive at 30? If the traffic around you is all whizzing past, you can either decide to carry on until you've ascertained the actual limit for yourself or just assume everyone else knows the limit and you can increase your speed a bit. In my experience of 20mph limit areas (there are several around here) these are normally very well signed and accompanied by additional traffic calming signange/measures so it shouldn't be too hard to work out you're in such a zone.
As regards the 'paying attention' bit I do think some people are lured into a rather casual attitude when driving. Whether these people are any better/worse/more dangerous than those who are aggressive, serial speeders or just plain bad drivers I don't know but I expect the lady in question here (and quite a few people who read this thread) will be paying a bit more attention from now on. The sad thing is that a seemingly good driving record over a period of years could all be lost due to carelessness and a degree of bad luck. It'd be good to be updated on what the final outcome is John.
|
|
Its a long shot, but local authorities do sometimes make mistakes in the assignment of speed limits, and there is the outside possibility that the limit may not be legal. One of the speeding help sites would tell you more.
|
Just out of interest what type of camera was it that she was caught with? I am thinking that if it was a gatso then wouldn't she have seen it flash?
Tyre Tread, I am fairly familiar with that strecth of the A5 that you were refering to. You are correct it is a very confusing stretch of road with regard to the speed limit.
|
I too am sympathetic. She's hardly been deterred ... (until of course she got the NIP'S)
>>Just out of interest what type of camera was it that she was caught with? I am thinking that if it was a gatso then wouldn't she have seen it flash?<<
Without meaning to sound 'preachy', if she never saw the 30 signs, I'd bet she never saw the flashes.*
Sorry John - hope she doesn't get banned.
*Could have been a Truvelo.
--
Adam
|
|
|
|
>>In my experience of 20mph limit areas (there are several around here) these are normally very well signed andaccompanied by additional traffic calming signange/measures so it shouldn't be too hard to work out you're in such a zone.
>>There is a 20 limit on part of the A308 at Hampton. This is the main feeder road to the M3 from Kingston and a large area.
There are no calming measures just signs. NO schools and not especially narrow or winding. No Gatsos YET.
It is quite odd to travel at that speed on an A road when no traffic is around. Few drivers keep to the limit even though the traffic boys are based 200 yds away.
Are there other examples of roads like this with 20 limits?
|
I used to commute half way round the M25, through the variable speed limit section. I once worked out that there were enough cameras watching me to lose my licence 3 times a day.
I'm sympathetic. Her failure (and it is a failure) is to not realise the limit on a familiar road. There was no recklessness or intention to speed. But her penalty for this is £180 and 9 points. This is disproportionate, and a good example of the potential for unfairness in autonated law enforcement.
I would suggest keeping careful records of the dates of the offences and the NIPs so that the story can be produced if there is a fourth offence.
|
|
|
A site that I found very useful when querying my son's speeding NIP was
www.pepipoo.com/
Recommended by someone on this site and there is a wealth of information. Didn't save my son in the end but I did learn a lot!!
|
I've just spent 40 minutes looking through that site, and I'm actually quite disappointed. They were of the attitude that they were completely in the right, even though there is video evidence that they were driving in the 90-98MPH range. Their favourite excuse is that the driver had over 23 years experience. So that makes it OK for them to speed, and the police should just leave them to go on their merry way?
Sure, the police officer drove badly, but that doesn't mean that it's OK for the man in question to speed.
The whole attitude of the site is, "This is what to do when you get caught for speeding." I far prefer the attitude here of "Well, you were speeding. Sure, it's unfortunate, but look on it as a learning experience."
|
I obviously did not look at those bits!! I concentrated on what the law was, how it operated and whether my son had any grounds for avoiding the fine - which in the end he didn't. I guess any site which encourages people to write in will have some nutters who think they are always right no matter what they did (or said!!!) (Last bit sounded like my wife talking about me!!)
|
Just a reminder if you have doubts abouts limits in a BUA use this as a rule of thumb.
Streetlamps = 30 mph as a restricted road.
Streetlamps no repeaters 40 etc. then its a restricted road and 30 mph.
Streetlamps and repeaters - nearside/offside/nearside will be 40 and above as per what is on the repeater.
So if there are streelamps keep you speed down to 30 until you see a repeater.
You may be lucky in parts and see steetlamps with NSL repeaters
at intervals then 60 single c/way 70 dual.
DVD
|
|
|
|
There's a road which I used to drive on intermittently (maybe once a month) which had several difft speed limits. Alternate 30s and 40s covering quite short stretches (maybe 1/2 a mile).
Frustratingly, they were marked by only one or two small signs, widely spaced on a narrow winding road :not the usual large round ones, just little tiddlers which you easily miss if you were behind one of the many trucks on that route.
After a few frustrating attempts to figure out which limit applied at which point, I gave up and treated the whole thing as a 30. Much less stress, and made v little difference to journey times.
It seems to me that this sort of precautionary approach is easy enough to adopt: as Avant says, "I suppose the only safe thing to do is to assume 30 mph in anything other than open country unless there are signs saying some other limit". To which I'd add that if it's the sort of zone which might be a 30, don't assume that you're in a 40 unless you've watched like a hawk for further 30 signs.
This driver doesn't sound like a tearaway, and I would hope that the magistrates would show some leniency to this woman, by not instantly disqualifying her (in view of the fact that she was observing what she wrongly thought to be the limit) ... but I'd guess that she'd still collect quite a few points and have to grovel hard by promising to be more observant in future. Sounds like a solicitor is muchly needed.
But it seems to me that this case illustrates rather well how we are in the middle of a change in approach to speeding, one which a lot of folks will find uncomfortable. Nowadays, we all accept that drink-driving is a conplete no-no: hardly anyone believes that they will get away with arguing that they were only just over the limit, or that they didn't know the beer was so strong ... and they won't get much sympathy if they do try that argument.
Instead, there is a pretty widespread understanding that there is no wiggle-room when it comes to drink: it's one of things where we each have a responsibility to check very carefully that we'll be within the limits, rather than to assume or trust to luck.
When drink-driving enforcement stepped a few decades ago, there were howls of protest as people had to adjust their driving habits, and some folks paid a heavy price if they were slow to catch up with the new approach.
Nowadays, nearly all drivers understand that you can no longer plead leniency with a friendly cop as you you drive a mile home having had an extra pint in the pub, but we still have some way to go before we get the same sort of understanding about speed limits.
|
NW - in my younger days as a trainee pilot, the effect of alcohol on flying skills was an important subject.
There is no comparison between driving just below the legal alcohol limit and driving at 36 in a 30. One is lethal and stupid. The other is illegal. It may also be somewhat more dangerous, depending on the circumstances.
Those who know me are aware that there is no point in offering me a drink if I am likely to be driving that day. And, often, the next morning is enough.
|
So funny we should talk about this.
A few nights ago, we all went out for a mate's birthday. Nice meal - but inevitably ended up at the Uni bar. Now I's picked someone up and knoew for a fact I'd be driving. If I know I'm driving I won't touch a drop. I know you can have so much but I think - what's the point?
So I was in Uni drinking Coke (or at least that's what it was sold as - tasted more like dishwater). Mates were coming up to me asking "what are you drinking that for?" to which my reply would be "I'm driving". They would then say "and?"
They all look at me like I'm a weirdo which usually is the case but I just don't understand it.
Speeding will never become as taboo as drinking. Not ever. Whether someone comes along with a theory now saying 35mph will kill everyone - it's a fact - people will not look at it like that.
In 50 years time, you can go into a pub and say "You'll never guess what - I just got done for 7mph in a 5mph zone."
The pub won't fall eerily silent - nor will a tumbleweed blow past. You'll get replies of "swines - haven't they got anythign better to do?"
--
Adam
|
|
|
There is no comparison between driving just below the legal alcohol limit and driving at 36 in a 30. One is lethal and stupid. The other is illegal. It may also be somewhat more dangerous, depending on the circumstances.
Patently, I know lots of people who used to routinely drive quite long distances while well over the limit, without accident: it sinply isn't true to say that being just over the legal alcohol limit is necessarily lethal.
However, it is dangerous and it is potentially lethal, which is why it's quite properly illegal, and strictly enforced. How dangerous depends on a whole variety of factors, including how far over the limit -- but the law has said simply that there is a cut-off point, and this is serious enough that nowadays if you go over it even once we'll throw the book at you.
Exceeding the speed limit causes an unnecessary increase in the the risk to other road-users, and an unnecessary increase in environmental problems. As with drink-driving, how big the danger is depends on a variety factors, including how much the limit is exceeded.
Both are illegal (and have been for years), both are potentially lethal, and both are avoidable if reasonable care is taken. One is more dangerous than the other, so it attracts higher penalties ... but it's a big leap from that to claim that exceeding the speed limit isn't stupid.
|
|
As with all other speed related posts, this'll get moved across to one of the relevant speeding threads later.
|
|
It does seem awfully unfair that a few minor speed violations over the course of a month can get you banned from driving, whilst Kevin in his bodykitted Nova doing 90 up the bypass every day gets away with it becuase he locks his wheels up before every camera.
|
It does seem awfully unfair that a few minor speed violations over the course of a month can get you banned from driving, whilst Kevin in his bodykitted Nova doing 90 up the bypass every day gets away with it becuase he locks his wheels up before every camera.
Once the SPECS cameras are more widely deployed, the likes of Kevin are in for a big shock, 'cos they measure speed over distance rather than at a point. Hopefully, SPECS cameras will become the default installation to catch the speed-then-brake merchants, with the single-point cameras reserved for a few unusual installations.
|
Personally I'm all for a revolutionary new type of speed enforcement. You may not have heard of it.
It's very good in that it can tell between people marginally over the limit and people causing no danger to others, and the reckless speeders, and ensure the latter are the ones hit hardest.
It's called a police officer.
|
"It's very good in that it can tell between people marginally over the limit and people causing no danger to others, and the reckless speeders, and ensure the latter are the ones hit hardest.
It's called a police officer."
Is that why my only speeding offence so far (I've been lucky!)was in 1971 when I was done by police for doing 45 in a light truck limited to 40 on a downhill stretch of deserted (apart from police car) dual carriageway in East Anglia at 2 am? The only danger I was causing was to very slow hedgehogs! The damned van would only do more than 40 going downhill! He was a very nice PC though - chatted to me for about half an hour before booking me!
|
With regard to last post Kevin won't be too bothered because he won't have registered the vehicle in his name.
Back to the original post, I'm surprised at the lack of sympathy towards this driver. Totting up (whereby one looses one licence having accrued 12 of more penalty points ) started years ago well before the advent of the cameras which require an effective owner registration system in order to work efficiently but that is another matter.In the good old days a offending driver would have been reported for an offence at the time of the offence , he would no doubt have adjusted his driving as a result in the knowledge 3 points were coming. To loose your licence in these circumstances is not justice. Some fixed sites will result in summonses being issued for travelling at 34MPH in a 30MPH speed limit so perhaps we should all be awaiting a Notice of intended Presecution.
If your friend recieves another NIP she will have to attend court anyway. She should get a solicitor who specialises in traffic matters and ask to keep her licence. The solicitor should stress that had she been stopped by an officer at the first offence offence there swould have been no further offences. A clean licence will help her.
Now if she'd been Kevin.....
|
When I'm in Kevin-mode I drive at 100 mph until I can see the next SPECS gantry, then pull over for 5 mins while I have a cig.
|
|
NoWheels, read my post!
driving just below the legal alcohol limit
vs:
driving at 36 in a 30
Only one is in fact illegal. And I can very confidently inform you that, compared with a sober driver travelling at 30 in a 30 limit, the additional risk posed by the legal but nearly drunk driver is far greater than that posed by the sober driver travelling illegally at 36.
Both are indeed more dangerous than the sober driver at 30, and I did acknowledge that the 36'er could pose a greater risk depending on the circumstances.
The point is that the nearly-drunk driver at 30 definitely poses a serious risk. The sober 36'er may pose a (smaller) additional risk depending on the road conditions. And, therefore, the law bears down on the wrong group. None of this mattered when the law was administered by intelligent, experienced officers. It matters now that enforcement is automated and unthinking.
The harsher you make the enforcement, the more certain you need to be that the laws and limits are correct.
P.S. I suggest that your acquaintances were very lucky indeed.
|
While I'd agree with Patently that the near drunk is a greater risk (and by extension that the alcohol limit should be lower)I think "law administered by intelligent, experienced officers" is in danger if acquiring the staus of urban myth.
My experience of police speeding action is "radar traps" set up at places where speeding is a known problem. Victoria Avenue, Yeadon, just by the Leeds/Bradford airport was a favourite in my youth. Caught by radar, pulled over and ticketed. Next stop Otley Mags Court.
Possibly if followed by a traffic car and clocked over a distance where driving was observed one might get away with a talking too particulalry if the officer was going off shift and couldn't be assed with the paper work. But radar traps were a no mercy zone and a far more likley encounter then a traffic car.
|
>>Only one is in fact illegal. And I can very confidently inform you that, compared with a sober driver travelling at 30 in a 30 limit, the additional risk posed by the legal but nearly drunk driver is far greater than that posed by the sober driver travelling illegally at 36.
As a VERY stupid 17 year old learner driver, I tested this unintentionally. Having had one and a half drinks whilst out, I thought I was fit to drive the car home when Dad turned up to pick me up. Hey, I knew what the drink drive limit was and I was under it....
I got less than 100 yards up the road before it became totally obvious to me that I didn't have proper control of the vehicle, my reaction times were shot and I was without doubt going to have an accident before I got home. Stopped, got out and gave the keys back to Dad (and got grounded for about six months as I remember).
Since then, I have never gone closer than sniffing distance to alcohol with car keys in my bag. And yes, I've heard all the b-s macho (sexist but sadly true) rubbish about "if you can't drive after a few drinks, you shouldn't be on the road" and "one or two won't hurt anyone". Even low levels of alcohol have a massive impact on driving skills.
The odds of a speeding driver having an accident - pretty low.
The odds of a drunk (even if legal) driver having an accident - pretty high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
