Got a speeding ticket

[Dave Elcome]

I have to whole heartedly agree with Flip, advanced driving courses are worthwhile , though i would also add that the only REAL advanced driving courses, are the type that Flip and myself are sent on on a regular basis, to ensure that our driving IS maintained at an advanced level.

Unfortunately we have suffered recently on the motorways in our area,  with a high proportion of fatal road crashes, it is a proven fact that speed kills, as was born out in many of these crashes.

With your overwhelming driving CV Spike, or should i say "Mr Who's Who of driving"? it is somewhat surprising that you didn't see the speed limit signs, or are you now choosing to forget they existed??

Your so called experience proves one thing,............you know how to press the gas pedal, that proof was born out on the motorway near Leeds recently.

 

[Maff]

Come on now guys, group hug &nbsp;<img src="http://www.mbclub.co.uk/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>

 

[Flip]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maff @ Aug. 01 2002,22:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Come on now guys, group hug  <img src="http://www.mbclub.co.uk/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
lol

So Sp!ke, plenty of driving courses, but nothing on anger management?

Heh heh. <img src="http://www.mbclub.co.uk/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>

 

[Sp!ke]

Ok, I've calmed down a bit now.

Dave Said in an earlier post..

[/QUOTE]Did the 50 mph limit sign suddenly jump out and surprise you? i think not. There would have been plenty of warning signs prior to the 50 limit starting, which would have given you ample opportunity to reduce your speed by the start of the limit.

Well I have news 4 ya'll. I asked my friend in Leeds if he could retrace my route for me this afternoon and guess what? He also confirmed that there does not appear to be any forwarning of the new temporary speed limit prior to the limit itself....unless of course he too is blind or driving with undue care, the common denominator here appears to be either very poor signing or, no warning at all.

In light of this, can you not now see why I may have taken 200 yards further than I should have to scrub off some speed? Assuming the signing to be inadequate, can you not forsee even your own self falling into the same trap? If not, what would you have done under the circumstances, plant your foot hard on the brake in order to slow down more rapidly (although technically legal, would you not agree it would have been more dangerous?) or would you have driven smoothly, anticipating that you had plenty of time to slow down before the roadworks and backed off the gas and let your engine do most of the braking for you the same as I.

Let me set the record straight, I am not asking for compassion or anyone's blessing on this but I cant help but think that some of you have got a little too carried away with the digital age and see only zero's and one's with nothing in between.... Yes there have to be limits otherwise there would be carnage on the roads but sometimes things are not as black or white as they seem - more a shade of grey.

My point being that under the circumstances I still maintain I did the right thing. My original question was,  Do you think that the officers decision to nick me was reasonable?  Would you have personally issued a ticket under these circumstances? I would be most surprised if you did!

Unfortunately IMO, the legal system in this country seems to work in a binary fashion also. Guilty or not guilty. If guilty get points if not, no points. I have yet to hear of any mitigating circumstances accepted by the courts that cater for the &quot;greyish&quot; motoring cases. The police therefore have been unofficially burdened with this responsibility like it or not. Its a shame a few of them seem incapable of making the distinction.

I know the method in which my speed was checked was against all Police guidelines and in my book at least, the Police should also show diligence to the rules as well as Joe Public. From reading the posts, it appears that some people here seem to think its ok for the police to bend their own rules to get a conviction whilst members of the public have to tread a very fine straight line. Who do you think the *real* criminal is in this equation?

There I have said my bit, I am sure you are all bored by this by now but I am going to fight for what I believe to be right and take the matter all the way as I am sure you all would   <img src="http://www.mbclub.co.uk/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'>

 

[Shude]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sp!ke @ Aug. 02 2002,00:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unfortunately IMO, the legal system in this country seems to work in a binary fashion also. Guilty or not guilty. If guilty get points if not, no points. I have yet to hear of any mitigating circumstances accepted by the courts that cater for the &quot;greyish&quot; motoring cases. The police therefore have been unofficially burdened with this responsibility like it or not. Its a shame a few of them seem incapable of making the distinction.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
That's so true.

My sister was involved in an accident a few years ago, she took a right at a T-junction after the road was clear except for the car to her right indicating left and turning left.  The driver of a car (which was presumably tailgating the turning car) decided to overtake at that point and went straight into the side of my sister's car.  My sister was only driving at about 5mph (just pulled out), the overtaking car pushed my sister's car about 15-20 metres (sideways! ) off the road through some wasteland (lucky! ).  It's obvious that the overtaking car was doing more than the 30 mph speed limit, and according to the highway code it's considered very poor driving to overtake at a junction (although we have all done it, right? ) but the only person to get a driving conviction out of that was my sister: driving without due care and attention, she was fined about £200 and had 3 points put on her licence, she has not driven since.

The other driver has since claimed several thousand pounds in injury compensations (probably due to the speed she was driving at *rolls eyes* )and her Toyota Carina was a write-off (luckily my sister was in a new Toyota Avensis and it took the impact well considering it was straight into the driver's door! )

Howcome only my sister was convicted?  Surely the other driver was equally if not more wrong?  Too much trouble to prove she was and let's face it, my sister broke the &quot;you should not pull out unless it is safe to do so&quot; rule so that's it, she's to blame, no point investigating any further. <img src="http://www.mbclub.co.uk/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>

 

[fuzzer]

If there is a chance of loosing out on income , change the law any way you feel like &nbsp;.........

http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/consult/speed/pdf/speed.pdf


<img src="http://www.mbclub.co.uk/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':angry:'>

 

[V12]

havent read it all, hope i dont go over anything...

how many points have you got, if it less than 9, then dont fight it.

you will not gain anything, even if you win, and if it is not about to loose you your license then forget it mate.

Sounds very harsh to me.

 

[Sp!ke]

I have Zero ponts and intend to keep it that way.

My thoughts are - Why the #### should I just accept 3 points when in my mind I *know* I did nothing wrong.

I am gonna fight it...and now thanks to some good advice I have the evidence to back it up.

I have a video tape being posted to me from my friends in Leeds of the stretch of road in question. Which apparently shows the absence of any warning of the impending speed limit ahead.

This coupled, with the fact that the traffic cop has breached his own regulations regarding the minimum distance required to measure my speed means I think I got a reasonable case.

The fact that I now note the police officer appears to have deliberately tweaked the distance up from 0.138 miles to 1.38 miles suggests that he is well aware of the regulations. If I can prove this to be deliberate then not only will I be after costs but also compensation and with a bit of luck, guts for garters.

Sit down and take it... NAH . I've never backed down for no-one so why start now?  
<img src="http://www.mbclub.co.uk/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>

 

[MainMan]

What you've got to remember, Sp!ke, is that the police don't have much to do nowadays, what with the crime rate being so low. So they've got to fill in their time by booking motorists for breaking ludicrous speed limits. They even manage to find time to arrest children for playing with plastic guns. What an energetic bunch they are.

 

[Sp!ke]

Finally got to the end of this saga.

In the end, £60 fine, £40 in costs but *NO* points.

It turns out that with temporary speed limits in place, offences are NON endorseable.

Now why didnt anybody else here know about that???

 

[RichardM]

I did know about that, that temporary speed restrictions (such as the flashing flights saying 50) are not endorseble but there are exceptions such as roadworks aren't there?

Well done Spike for getting away with no points.

 

[Guy]

Originally posted by Sp!ke
Finally got to the end of this saga.

In the end, £60 fine, £40 in costs but *NO* points.

It turns out that with temporary speed limits in place, offences are NON endorseable.

Now why didnt anybody else here know about that???

First, congratulations on getting a result.

Second, temporary speed limits are endorseable if they have been properly and lawfully imposed, and are appropriately signed. If for some reason they haven't been, its the offence that disappears, not the points.

The only other possibility is that the Court found 'special reasons' for not imposing points. Too complicated & boring to set out the law in detail here, but its possible that they accepted that there was no warning of the temporary 50mph limit, and decided that amounted to special reasons for not endorsing your licence.

Well done anyway

:bannana:

Just re-read this whole thread, and I reckon that it must have been special reasons from your post -

Originally posted by Sp!ke
Well actually, there was no warning of the 50mph limit.

Also, how have I become thread starter on this?

 

[Sp!ke]

Temporary speed limits
You should note that exceeding a temporary speed limit is a non-endorsable offence. This means that you can only get a fine, but not have any endorsements (points) applied to your license. Of course, like most things in law, there is an exception, and in this case it's national speed limits (ie. motorways and dual carriageways). If you exceed a temporary limit on a motorway, such as in roadworks, or the controlled-speed section of the M25, then it becomes an endorsable offence, ie. points. This information is in some dispute at the moment, but came from a traffic officer undergoing basic traffic training so I have no reason to believe that it's false.

 

[gregster44]

mgp

how fast were you going through the speed trap at the grandstand on glencrutchery road ?

 

[Michael]

A fascinating saga.......

Congratulations on avoiding an endorsement.

Michael.