Done for speeding by mobile camera

[richard]

Heres a thought.

What was the speed limit before the 30mph, and from where was the sign visible ?

Lets say it was 60MPH before, then taking the highway code 'thinking' distance at 60MPH of 50 meters, and adding it to the 14meters needed to emergency brake from 30 to 0, then means the signs had to be visible 64 meters before - and thats if you slammed the brakes on full.

I'm hoping for your sake there was a brow of the hill before the decent and there wasn't 64 metres.

Richard

Richard

 

[w124coupe]

A few bits and bobs:

You have to plead not guilty before you can DEMAND access to the evidence the police intend to use (however, a few forces place the video evidence on a website). The evidence will then be provided for you to use in your defence as part of pre-hearing disclosure.

Pleading not guilty and then being convicted at the magistrates brings you into means-tested fines (typically £200-1000 for a speeder) and you get to experience the joy of telling the court all about your income and outgoings and get a write up in the local rag. Magistrated are usually local and hate speeders zooming through "their" 30mph zones - expect a fine at the high end of their guidelines. You are unlikely to win without a good solicitor - £100+ per hour.

Appealing against the magistrate means "proper" court where you need a barrister - £200+ per hour. If you lose, you pay both sides' costs.

Speeding is an absolute offence - 1mph over at or beyond the limit sign and you are guilty. The Police guidelines re "10% over" etc are just that - guidelines.

Looking at the pics, the guideline the police may have broken (hard to tell) is the one where the officer, by prior observation, has to have grounds to believe you were speeding in order to then press the lidar trigger. If he zapped you (and everyone else) JUST as you crowned the hill then he broke the guidelines....in this case, CPS might drop the case as they don't like broken guidleines being aired in court (the officer gets a public slap)....BUT, you are still guilty of the offence.

My advice?

You did it, they caught you.

Unless you are at 9 points now, pay the £60 and then get a combined radar and laser detector (one that will allow a code change to disable the laser bit when it becomes illegal). Most of then now have GPS and can "honk" at you when you enter a limit too fast - useful.

 

[lamboman]

I've fitted an Origin b2 unit with the radar detector and the Target LRC 100 laser jammer and so far it has jammed 2 of these Talivans. Once when I was just coming out of a 30 zone and had excelerated to 40 mph 100 yards before the end of the zone to climb the hill, part way up hidden by trees was a Talivan clocking every vehicle. luckely I jammed him, but according to the local paper 175 other people got a ticket within a few hours. This is not a bad stretch of road just an easy spot for the police to raise some funds.

 

[big x]

As might be expected there is tons of info about this subject on the web http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/how.htm#how1
I'll have six points after this so I'll pay up this time.
I've been driving performance cars and motorbikes (including racing) since 1980 and have never had an accident or ticket until six months ago.There are just far to many cars (25 million) on this small island for the future to be anything other than bleak for the motorist in many areas.In future I may have to take a driving test under a false name to get a license.
BTW take care on the B390 which crosses Sailsbury plain,hardly an accident blackspot but that is where I was shot down.

adam

 

[Parrot of Doom]

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?t=269414&f=10&h=0

Very long thread, but well worth a read. Similar circumstances to the OP's problem.

 

[bitonw]

and? 30 is not 50...

 

[Flasheart]

if big x really - I mean really - couldn't slow down to the speed limit without causing a rear-end shunt then I would use that in my defense

I can't see it working - so your excuse for speeding was that despite driving too fast you were frightened that the car behind you was going to rear end you? If i was the beak my question would be simple - why didn't you pull over and let them through instead of being intimidated into speeding?

 

[Flasheart]

As might be expected there is tons of info about this subject on the web http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/how.htm#how1
I'll have six points after this so I'll pay up this time.
I've been driving performance cars and motorbikes (including racing) since 1980 and have never had an accident or ticket until six months ago.There are just far to many cars (25 million) on this small island for the future to be anything other than bleak for the motorist in many areas.In future I may have to take a driving test under a false name to get a license.
BTW take care on the B390 which crosses Sailsbury plain,hardly an accident blackspot but that is where I was shot down.

adam

Well done for taking your punishment. You sir are a dieing breed on this BBS.

 

[bitonw]

I can't see it working - so your excuse for speeding was that despite driving too fast you were frightened that the car behind you was going to rear end you? If i was the beak my question would be simple - why didn't you pull over and let them through instead of being intimidated into speeding?

Just use your cruise control and put it on 30... And don't forget to wave to those camaras and smile.

 

[dougal74]

then start braking a bit earlier

These signs at the side of the road are usually pretty high visibility being made of a reflective white background with a red border and all that, they are hardly hiding them.

if your reactions to speed limit signs are that slow, or your spatial awareness so poor that you don't see them then quite honestly you shouldn't be driving as fast as you are.


Andy

Get a grip and remove yourself from your high horse. I'll take you down the same stretch of road and see how you overcome the laws of physics!

I just love getting critisised for merely sympathising with the original post from personal experience.

It has nothing to do with signs or visibility or reactions or anything else. Me and people like me are not idiots and are attempting to slow down well before they reach the village (i.e. on the hill itself well before the sign) not for fear of the law but simply for safety. The momentum you carry down the hill means it the speed is not easy to wash off - in some circumstances (e.g. someone following too closely behind who has no interest in slowing to 30) harsh or severe braking can be more dangerous to you and the muppet behind than crossing the threshold at 36mph.

Why go from 60 to 30, why not put a 40mph limit at a suitable point on the gradient so that the speed change is gradual rather than dramatic?

 

[nickwilcock]

You were driving too fast.

You got caught.

But well done for owning up and coughing up, rather than whining about evidence and wasting both your time and the court's when you were so clearly 'bang to rights'.

The proliferation of these 'turkey thirty' limits under Dear Leader Bliar means that there are now a large number of quite unreasonable speed limits. What is needed is an agreed national policy, negotiated between RRL, the police and DfT rather than the plethora of speed limits which spring up every time some idiot on the council says "It's so dangerous for the kiddies......"

 

[219]

the plethora of speed limits which spring up every time some idiot on the council says "It's so dangerous for the kiddies......"

It really is NOT that simple to have a speed limit reduced on a road : all sorts of criteria have to be met regarding population , traffic levels , accident statistics and more .....

I and my neighbours would welcome a reduction in the speed limit at the accident blackspot outside our home (15 accidents in the last 12 months , at least three were injury accidents , my partner and I have had our cars written off whilst parked (see thread 'Death of my 300') , numerous instances of property damage) but despite a high profile media campaign all we have had is some 'Shellgrip' put on the surface with three further accidents in the 2 months since it was done . Since most of the accidents occur as a result of people either losing control on the bend near my cottage or failing to stop behind traffic waiting to turn right at the junction next to my home - both of which would be avoidable if speeds were lower - a speed limit reduction would be both practical and effective . Sadly , the local cops agree that it is likely someone will have to be killed before something is done .

Here is an example of one driver caught on video outside my home just before she wrote off my girlfriend's car which was parked outside .

"It's so dangerous for the kiddies......"

Do you REALLY think that slowing down the ever increasing number of a***hole drivers on the road comes in any way even close to weighing up against saving the life of even ONE innocent child ???

 

[BTB 500]

I personally think the majority of 30 limits are fair enough (maybe we even need 20 limits outside schools etc.).

I do object though to widespread limiting of major 2-lane (sometimes 3-lane) roads that were previously national limit to 50 or even 40 mph, which seems to be the trend round where I live.

 

[GregE240]

Big X,

Proud of you for taking the fine and not complaining too much. Sensible man.

I sincerely hope you're joking.

Another victim of this spineless, faceless indirect taxation thats become a cancer on the law abiding majority in this country, more like.

 

[Mr E]

I sincerely hope you're joking.

Another victim of this spineless, faceless indirect taxation thats become a cancer on the law abiding majority in this country, more like.

Why...it's a penalty for breaking the law??

 

[GregE240]

Why...it's a penalty for breaking the law??

Thats as maybe, but theres an utter lack of discretion shown - the author already pointed out that he had a car bearing down on him so was less inclined to apply greater braking force, should the driver behind be unable to stop and hit him?

Not only that, the driver behind was probably concentrating on the camera van so was probably MORE likely to hit the driver in front.

Thousands of people in this country are being criminalised for exceeding a speed limit by several miles per hour.

And I think this sucks.

 

[nickwilcock]

"Not only that, the driver behind was probably concentrating on the camera van so was probably MORE likely to hit the driver in front."

Which would be driving without due car and attention, no doubt.

A road near me was recently blighted with a blanket 50 mph after some local councillor bleated about the accident in which a child had been killed. "It must have been the speed she was doing", was the stupid mantra she spouted.

Well, the child was in the back of the car. How did the councillor not know that the woman had been turning round to talk/shout/comfort her offspring when she ran off the road and hit the tree?

I am all in favour of rigorous enforcement of sensible, reasonable and appropriate limits. But dead against arbitrary nonsense - such as the A452 between Balsall Common and thw A45. Overnight it went from 70 to 50 - yet apart from along the single stretch with a scamera, no-one obeys it. This leads to a national disregard for all such daft limits....

Oh - and tell your brats (as I was told) DO NOT PLAY IN THE ROAD! I still recall the bellowing from my father after I crossed the A358 in Ilminster in 1956-ish after having been told not to...

 

[DieselE]

I personally think the majority of 30 limits are fair enough (maybe we even need 20 limits outside schools etc.).

A number of countries (America, Australia and New Zealand to name three that I know of) have lower limits outside schools that only apply during school entering and leaving times. I'd certainly support 20 limits outside schools provided they only applied at the high risk times. Being forced to crawl past a school at seven in the evening is not my idea of common sense.

 

[Spinal]

Speaking of 20's... Next too my house there is an American school. That whole road, from one end to the other has been made a 20mph zone, with speed bumps, side-speed bumps (especially annoying as so many people stop to do between then instead of over!), width restrictions, and mini-roundabouts...

Does it work? No way. Would it be a good idea? Possibly... if it were effective and were "active" around school hours, that would be great. But every time I'm there, and go at 20mph, there is always someone behind me who either flashes, tries to overtake or drives glued to my rear bumper.

 

[andy_k]

Thousands of people in this country are being criminalised for exceeding a speed limit by several miles per hour.

And I think this sucks.

so enforcing the law sucks?

whether they are breaking the speed limit by 5,10,15 or 20mph is largely irrelevent.

Everyone who gets in a car to drive knows what the speed limits are and if they choose to ignore them or disregard them then I am more than happy for them to pay a few quid extra in taxes here and there. After all it's an entirely voluntary tax - perhaps if they renamed it as a "stupidity tax" people would be less inclined to pay it.

It's not that any of them are incapable of driving at 30 mph because i'm willing to bet if they had a police car in their rear view mirror they would be driving within the speed limit.

30mph (or any other speed limit for that matter) doesn't mean you have to drive at 30mph it means you aren't allowed to go any faster than that so you already have 30mph leaway how much more would you think was a reasonable figure before people were prosecuted?

Do we also start letting other petty criminals off if they only do a bit of shop lifting or a bit of fraud etc or does this leniency only apply to motorists?

Around here we have several 20mph zones outside schools including a time limted one on the A21 (main London - Hastings Road) at Hurst Green which work really well. Around Hastings there are speed humps to keep the 20mph limit.

Andy