Speeding! Any Advice?

[jamsh]

I have just received a Xmas message from Essex Police. Notice of intention to prosecute! ' Failing to conform with a temporary 40mph speed limit within road works on the M11 and M25 in the vicinity of the Theydon Interchange, Essex.'
'The speed of the vehicle was 53mph in a 40mph limit.'

Any advice would be much appreciated!

 

[andy_k]

Check the legality of the signs in these temp limits

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/3160419.stm

that would be my first plan of action.

Andy

 

[Benzowner]

Unfortunately, they rarely get it wrong , pay the fine and forget it

 

[Dieter]

Hi Jamsh.

Unless you weren't 'doing' 53 mph and can (somehow) prove it? accept your fate and keep your eyes open in future!

Sorry to be so blunt but the only 'crime' relating to speeding is being caught .

 

[Flyer]

Bad luck. In a couple of years, everybody will have been banned. Even those arrogant enough to state that they never speed.

Head over to PePiPoo mate; should be first port of call for anyone caught.

Don't make it easy for them though; ask for photographic evidence to prove who was driving. *Everyone* should do this.

 

[glojo]

Hands up those that have 'snooper' type detection equipment and has it paid for itself, in the 'locating' of these revenue collectors?

That could be my belated answer to your question. Having hindsight is no consolation, but it might be worth either slowing down, or investing in some ICE.

Goodluck,
John

 

[garystu1965]

Standard letter. Nothing to worry about. No need to go to court etc. Just pay the fine.

 

[Thmsshaun]

We should all revolt and take our number plates off

Infact does anyone know what is the prosecution for an illegible number plate?

 

[Flyer]

Standard letter. Nothing to worry about. No need to go to court etc. Just pay the fine.

Nothing to worry about?! Only 3 points and £60, plus possible extra insurance premiums; collect another couple and you're on shank's pony! There's everything to worry about ...

Don't make it easy for them. A lot of police officers feel the same way about these scammers.

Illegible number plates is a whole world of trouble, 3 points and upto £1000 fine ... No number plate, however, is a £30, non-endorsable penalty

 

[Shude]

This should be in the incidents section or whatever, moving

 

[Thmsshaun]

Illegible number plates is a whole world of trouble, 3 points and upto £1000 fine ... No number plate, however, is a £30, non-endorsable penalty [/QUOTE]


May have to try that one. Sorry officer they were there in the morning when I checked must have been nicked.

You would be safe from speeding by all but the patrol car.

 

[pammy]

I passed an "odd" looking van on the top of the M55 this aft - put the anchors on, and just thought b*ll***s. Don't think It was a camera van though but will have to see. If it is and I've been got fair and square I'll just pay up. Do the crime and all that.

Unless there are any mitigating circumstances then tbh and quite blunt - I get fed up of hearing how people try to get out of being done for speeding when they were speeding

 

[Flyer]

Unless there are any mitigating circumstances then tbh and quite blunt - I get fed up of hearing how people try to get out of being done for speeding when they were speeding

Really? I don't. Will you feel that way when you're on 9 points and risk losing your licence for exceeding the speed limit by a couple of miles per hour when you, safely, overtook that car on the A road and got zapped by a camera van hiding in a layby?

I think that the government (like many others) is too obsessive about speed, to the detriment of other problems. Excessive speed is responsible for less than 10% of accidents (can't remember the "exact" figure, but it is definitely not 33%!). That's a lot of accidents that are due to some other causation factor that is being completely ignored.

Were you driving dangerously before you spotted the van? Or were you driving at a speed that was suitable for the circumstances? Would you say that it was more dangerous that you, understandably, "put the anchors on"? The motorways are our safest roads, and yet there is (possibly!) a camera van there to catch drivers who may be exceeding the current, unreasonable, speed limit? Can there really be any reason other than cash for that being there?

I've said on here before that everytime I drive my car, I exceed the speed limit. Without exception. I am neither proud not ashamed of that fact. It just is. I would wager that most, if not all, drivers do the same. I also do less than the speed limit when conditions and circumstances dictate.

I have one speeding conviction from 1991, but it is inevitable that I, along with millions of others, will get caught. Here's a report in the Sunday Times:

IT IS a formula to infuriate. A leading statistician has warned there are now enough speed cameras to ensure the average driver can expect to face three driving bans in their motoring career, writes Jonathan Leake.

The study found that a typical driver — someone who normally obeys the rules but occasionally lapses — should now see occasional bans as almost inevitable.

Is that right? I think not.

So, when (not if) I get a NIP, I will do everything I can to get out of it.

(Pammy, please don't feel that I'm having a go at you, because I'm not. It was just easier to draft a reply using your post )

 

[pammy]

(Pammy, please don't feel that I'm having a go at you, because I'm not. It was just easier to draft a reply using your post )

Flyer - no worries

But at the end of the day - if you are going over the speed limit and you are already on 9 points then you only have yourself to blame don't you? First for the fact you are up to 9 points and that having accrued 9 you've allowed yourself to get got - again Sorry - but you get 3 bites of the cherry, wanting more is being greedy.

I have every sympathy for certain people who there but for the grace of god - but if you know what the speed limit is and you go over it you are breaking the law and run the risk of being caught. It's as simple as that. The prevailing conditions are irrelevant. Just because the weather and visibility is good doesn't mean you can exceed the speed limit. You are expected to reduce your speed should the weather conditions not be good - not the other way around.

I was prob doing about 85 when I saw this van. I am fairly convinced it wasn't a camera van - just a stripey van being wicked I knew the limit was 70 and was just trying to push it to get past a truck before the lanes narrowed. I didn't and you could very successfully argue that I was where I should have been all along - ie behind the van until such time as I had more road and time to crawl past him at 70 mph - which I wouldn't have done 'cos he was going over that too

I also don;t necessarily disagree that we are unrealistic with some of our road laws and limits - but that's what they are. Breaking the law will not get it changed.

jmho

 

[glojo]

So, when (not if) I get a NIP, I will do everything I can to get out of it.

Hi Flyer,
I can understand where you are coming from, but perhaps I do not agree with the last paragraph.

By all means wriggle and try to get off of a speeding conviction. However telling 'whoopsies' under oath is best left to 'criminals'.

When someones stands up in a court of law and SWEARS under oath to tell the TRUTH, then I am old fashioned and truly believe that our courts should come down heavily on anyone that tells untruths. I hate hearing how burglars, murderers and all sorts of other criminals blatantly lie under oath, get proved guilty and are not charged with perjury. Likewise if someone tells lies to get off a speeding charge then if they are found out, they should also be charged.

I am sure that you are not the sort to tell 'whoopsies', but hopefully are the type to attempt to wriggle.

Having said that anyone caught speeding outside a school or other similar 'risk' area should be disqualified. That would also include celebrities and other high profile people. They sometimes appear to be shown unfair favouritism

Just realised I slipped into 'Rant' mode.

So bye for now,
Take care,

John The Rant

 

[Flyer]

Just because the weather and visibility is good doesn't mean you can exceed the speed limit.

But the message that is being put across is, "Don't speed and you'll be safe", so you get Doris doing exactly 30 in a 30, because she has been conditioned into believing, through adverts on TV and in the paper, that 30 is safe and anyone who exceeds it is a nutter ... and is stunned when she runs into the back of a car that stopped suddenly to avoid the little girl crossing the road (yes, I know it's emotive, but if the government can do it, so can I ). The point is that judgement is being taken out of the driving equation.

I was prob doing about 85

Didn't you know that your insides will turn to green slime and your brain will turn to mush at that velocity?! At least, that's what they would have you believe.

I also don;t necessarily disagree that we are unrealistic with some of our road laws and limits - but that's what they are. Breaking the law will not get it changed.

"You have to make more noise than anybody else, you have to make yourself more obtrusive than anybody else, you have to fill all the papers more than anybody else, in fact you have to be there all the time and see that they do not snow you under, if you are really going to get your reform realised."

"The argument of the broken pane of glass is the most valuable argument in modern politics."

Guess who?

 

[Flyer]

However telling 'whoopsies' under oath is best left to 'criminals'.

Yes, sorry, I did not mean that one should tell lies. Honour, sir!

But if one can, legally, avoid a speeding conviction, then clearly that avenue should be explored. There should be no question that the Safety Camera Partnerships are in this "business" for the money; road safety is a secondary consideration. Do you feel the roads are safer now than they were 10-15 years ago before the proliferation of speed cameras? I don't think so and the statistics certainly don't agree.

Having said that anyone caught speeding outside a school or other similar 'risk' area should be disqualified. That would also include celebrities and other high profile people. They sometimes appear to be shown unfair favouritism

Disqualification? Perhaps a bit far, but convicted? Absolutely, with one caveat. At 8:45am or 3:30pm it would be unwise, unsafe and stupid to be tootling along at 40mph. At 8:45pm or 3:30am it would be perfectly safe. But presently, you would suffer the same penalty.

Totally agree with your point about "celebrities". I would extend that to government ministers as well.

BTW I love your rants; they're so well-structured and polite!

 

[pammy]

But the message that is being put across is, "Don't speed and you'll be safe", so you get Doris doing exactly 30 in a 30, because she has been conditioned into believing, through adverts on TV and in the paper, that 30 is safe and anyone who exceeds it is a nutter ... and is stunned when she runs into the back of a car that stopped suddenly to avoid the little girl crossing the road (yes, I know it's emotive, but if the government can do it, so can I ). The point is that judgement is being taken out of the driving equation.

In your example - should she have been speeding then which you seem to suggest would be OK - then she would have ploughed into the back of the car in front even sooner The only reason she would have hit the car in front would have been because she was not observing what was going on on the road on front of her and/or had not allowed enough stopping space between herself and the car she hit - not a good argument for raising the speed limit or condoning travelling above the legal limit.

Didn't you know that your insides will turn to green slime and your brain will turn to mush at that velocity?! At least, that's what they would have you believe.

So that's why my brain went mushy - sod all to do with hormones and having children and working too hard then and occasional intake of alcohol

"You have to make more noise than anybody else, you have to make yourself more obtrusive than anybody else, you have to fill all the papers more than anybody else, in fact you have to be there all the time and see that they do not snow you under, if you are really going to get your reform realised."

"The argument of the broken pane of glass is the most valuable argument in modern politics."

Guess who?

mmm - Ms Pankhurst fought a valiant cause and every woman today owes her something. But these are different times and different subjects in hand. She was not driving a ton of metal at a child or elderly soul trying to cross a busy road or one of many other similar and much larger bits of metal flying down the roads at speeds they cannot control - even though many of them (us) think they (we) can

We are all running the risk of having that child run out on front of us. The old goat that trotted out in front of me the other day for example - luckily I stopped!


ooops - oven beeping - kids want feeding - I'll be back


Back - but the real bugbear, for us it seems, is that motorway speed limits are too low. On that one you won't get any argument from me - but sadly atm - the law says otherwise

 

[McGreggor]

All this talk of points and bans, I feel i should point out that if your ever nabbed for speeding in a temporary restricted area, e.g roadworks, they can only ever fine you, never points.

 

[glojo]

All this talk of points and bans, I feel i should point out that if your ever nabbed for speeding in a temporary restricted area, e.g roadworks, they can only ever fine you, never points.

Hi Mc,
Remind me never to ask you to defend me.

I am sure you know what you mean, but unfortunately what you are saying lacks factual substance.

Regards,
John The Doubter