Caught Speeding - The verdict

14 Jul 2005

My advice would be get yourself a fantastic lawyer who knows the road traffic act inside out biggrin

It will probably set you back about Â£500 to Â£1000. mad

As I was in slightly the same boat but I got caught doing 128 mph in a 60 limit on my bike. The result was I got clean away with no points or a ban cool

as my brief found that the police officer actually didnt follow proper procedures (eg He was targeting cars coming towards him, but caught me as I was moving away from him on the oppersite side)
Hope it helps
Cheers
Mark :D

14 Jul 2005

Quote by PoloLady
Once you go over the majic 100mph it is a ban. The duration of the ban will depend on:
* Previous driving record
* The nature of your employment
* Time of the incident (busy or not)
* The luck of the draw (the personal view of the person who has the final say)
* Whether you can get away with telling them you were brushing-up on your high speed pursuit driving skills!

remind the judge that a copper was caught doing 145 in a vauxhall vectra...just testing it !!!
not on an emergency or anything ,,so why should i get band for a poxy low 100s your honour

14 Jul 2005

If you are caught going over 100 mph on a motorway and your manner of driving has not come into question - ie not careless or worse dangerous then it is a simple matter covered by Schedule 2 of the road trafic Offenders Act 1988 subsection 17(4) - Use of special road contrary to scheme or regulation - easy for me to say
Firstly it is a summarily offence - hence it is before those nice magistrates (Justices of the peace) unless your really unlucky then it could be a deputy district judge - he/she has is legally qualified and generally a bit more harsh
Right secondly it will not be a custodial sentance, it is what is called level 4 fine - usally over Â£250 notes(chances all the time and takes into effect montary position)
Thirdly on the question of diqualification - it is in fact Discretionary and not writtern in stone. You need to give a good reason why you shouldn't be banned. These are usally need it for work - rep/ doctor on call etc or medical emergency which covers in something called special defences. This area is one best left to a solictor and it means a real medical emergency - not a cut finger. Failing above , you would expect a disqualification on your first occasion of anythink from a week to a month. The sting in the tail though is if you are disqualified - your insurance will go through the roof.
An finally expect to get somewhere around 3 - 6 fixed penalty points on your licensee after the disqualification period is over.
Now your totally confussed rolleyes

Hope it helps and good luck a bit harsh in my opinion for it to be going to court as you should have what is called the 10% rule. I guess you where 50% over the 70mph speed limit though and traffic are a law onto themselves.

14 Jul 2005

Something that may or may not be useful in your defence, is that I was once told that if the speed camera, gatso or whatever, hasn't been checked for calibration that day, then you can't be prosecuted. As any errors that occur in the equipment may give a miss reading.
I'm sure someone here more qualified than me will know more about this. It may help though.
Good luck biggrin

14 Jul 2005

Quote by equi-princess
Mmmmm.... that sounds even worse......
My maths was correct though..... a third over..... but yours gave it more impact.......
equi-princess xxx

You are wrong there Princess, the speed limit was two thirds of the speed he was going, but he was 50% over the speed limit.
You are looking at it the wrong way around, think of this;
An item costs Â£117.5 (Â£100 plus VAT) however the VAT amount ( ) is 21% of the total amount. How can 17.5% suddenly become 21%?
Help me out here Ice, you have a much clearer way of putting these things.
Chris

14 Jul 2005

As you might guess from my earlier reply I have some working knowledge of this - no prizes for guessing why dunno

There is no specified time for a calibration to have been done prior to you being caugth. It was an old defence before speedo meters where calibrated. It is no longer a need for the device/car to be tested in some cases for the life of device/car. It is however common praticse to check around about every month or two.
Sorry to blow a hole on that defence or not as it turns out. Your only real defences are on who was driving the vehicle or procedure. Again a solictor is best person to speak to regarding this. Basically its to do with weather your where given a 'notice of intended prosecution'. This should be given verabally at scene or can be given by post around month after offence or the police tracing the offender. It basically a officer telling you you will be reported for the offence of excess speed.
Re saying you where not driving as mentioned if you where it becomes a case of perveting the course of justice - which you can and most likley will get 6 months in prision and not mention a crimnal record for a dishonest offence - which means no one wants to employ you.
I am sure your all bored by now :sleeping:

14 Jul 2005

I'm sorry to be out of synch with this thread but 103 MPH!!
To be honest mate, If I were the Magistrate I'd ban you for a year or two.
I know you had the precursor that you were not proud of it, (I should think not), but that is seriously a stupid speed to do and you should expect to have the proverbial book thrown at you.
It is people like you who kill other normal drivers like myself who, although obviously I transgress occasionally by exceeding the limit by a small margin (doesn't everybody?), I don't drive at maniacal speeds - EVER!
Naturally you are receiving sympathy as part of an online community but 103MPH is a ridiculous speed to be travelling at.
Sorry to rain on your party mate but I for one believe that you SHOULD have your licence revoked for a reasonable period of time as a punishment to you and a deterrent to others.

14 Jul 2005

I reckon you will just have to Plead GUILTY and be very very sorry the magistrate will be more likely to give you less of a sentence if you admit your offence the law states very clear under the Road Traffic Act that any more than 95 MPH in a 70 zone will automatically be a Ban Points and a fine so prepare yourself for it..
Quite frankly your a bit off a CUNT to be doing that speed anyway you should count yourself lucky that you never had an accident and killed inocent people let alone be upset off the charge.
There are enough idiots in this country blowing up and killing people having you off the road is a GOOD THING for the rest off us that have to pay high insurance premiums because dumb ass fuckers like you abuse the system..
SO THERE..
dick head........................... :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:

14 Jul 2005

seriously get yourself a cam dedector/jammer when you get youve passed again
tbh i drive at 80-100mph on the motorways most of the time, if your in the fast lane then i cant see a problem. Never had an accident (and never been clocked). The real cunts are the ones who drive without insurance not people who go over the limit on the motorway
BTW: a year ban me thinks, and the tests are harder to pass when you get setteled in those bad ways :twisted:

14 Jul 2005

let he who is without sin cast the first stone,,etc etc,,I suppose those who feel the need to be rude and cynical are also incapable of speeding,,all this emphasis has created a whole new hazard for road users the people who spout off about speeders and drive below the speed limit and still jump on the brakes at the sight of a camera...now that's dangerous...sound familiar?

14 Jul 2005

Seeing as the moral majority have decided to inflame this thread, here's my take.
I have done 135, 143, 128, 101, 98, all indicated (so probably 10 - 15mph less in most instances). I am either a patchwork Frankenstien creation, or I managed not to crash on any of those occassions. 143 was done in a large executive car perfectly balanced and braked to maintain those sorts of speeds if conditions allowed. In fact, 70 in some of the cars I've owned has been far closer to the danger point of their chassis than 143 in that car!
There is no reason why 70mph is automatically safer than 150mph, weather, visibility, amount of traffic, nature of the road, car design, car condition, driver condition all come into play. It is far safer to do 103 in a "fast" car on a clear dry wide straight empty road with no junctions or other hazards, than it is to do 50mph on a wet motorway in rush hour in a Herald or Imp. In fact, in all my driving experience, doing anything over 45mph in one of my 60s cars was a far more frightening experience than any of the times I approached or went over three figures on dry straight wide empty roads (see the figures above). Speed limits are an arbitrary figure based on out of date average car capability and very out of date road layouts and so on.
I am not for one moment advocating dangerous use of speed, I'm just sick of people automatically hurling abuse at the "evil" speeders without taking any other circumstance than a number on a dial into account.

14 Jul 2005

It is also rather interesting to note when talking about all the evil speeding people on the motorways that most of the time you need to exceed 70 to keep up with the traffic in anything other than the slowest lane. - so that means two thirds of drivers on the motorways are exceeding the speed limit. And to keep up in the outside lane you are probably looking at 90 mph most of the time.
Rather than trying to make money out of people doing the same things as everyone else maybe it would be a good idea to re-assess the speed limits on motorways to reflect the safety/breaking distances of modern cars.
Motorways are still mile for mile by far the safest roads to travel on even at 100mph.
Roger the Dragon cool

14 Jul 2005

My sat nav tells me that when my speedometer indicates 70mph the real speed is around 65-66mph.
My only virtue is never to exceed 30mph in the appropriate locale but 70mph is up for breaking. I've only been stopped by the polis twice: once for going through a red light but Ihad a reasonable and legitimate reason for it and once recently for overtaking a police van which was doing more than the national speed limit. Once I pointed that out to the be-jeaned and be-Tshirted driver he sort of whithered away with a combination of a grin and a grimace on his face. Fun times.
Now, my good friend Nallers has a sorrier tale to tell even though he is paranoid about driving matters and despairs of my behaviour. Mind you, he indicates to turn even when no-one else is in sight or we're on a remote and unpopulated road.
lol

14 Jul 2005

Nallers drives with you in the car? :shock:
Fuck me Jags, you are bad enough standing behind me when I am typing, I dare not imagine what you are like in the passenger seat of the car. :jagsatwork:
As for that poor policeman, I daresay that was the last ever stop he made! wink

lhk
Kat

14 Jul 2005

Quote by rogerthedragon
It is also rather interesting to note when talking about all the evil speeding people on the motorways that most of the time you need to exceed 70 to keep up with the traffic in anything other than the slowest lane. - so that means two thirds of drivers on the motorways are exceeding the speed limit. And to keep up in the outside lane you are probably looking at 90 mph most of the time.
Rather than trying to make money out of people doing the same things as everyone else maybe it would be a good idea to re-assess the speed limits on motorways to reflect the safety/breaking distances of modern cars.
Motorways are still mile for mile by far the safest roads to travel on even at 100mph.
Roger the Dragon

Just to follow on from Roger, I'd like to remind everyone that Mototrway speed limits were introduced by Barbara Castle after some horrific accidents involving supercars ( AC Cobras, E-Types, etc ) rear ending family cars ( Ford Anglias, etc ) at high speed. At the time it was very nessesary, but when was the last time you saw an Anglia on the road?
Ah-ha! I hear you say high speed leads to greater braking distances, just look on the back of the Highway Code to see how big they are already at 70mph. True but those are the distances for a Ford Anglia ( at the time, the biggest selling car ) and a few years ago Top Gear did a test to see how accurate those distances are, between an Anglia, a Land Rover Discovery, and a Porsche 911 ( ie old, mordern ( not great brakes ) modern ( great brakes ) and the two modern cars trounced the Anglia, even after the Disco locked up!
If the world ( or at least engineering ) progresses, why can't the law / government? At the least a public review is long overdue - and any recommendation for an increase would be welcomed by the majority of people, I'm sure ( going by the sympathy here for someone that quite excessively broke the limit - and that is a gross generalisation ), or is the reason the subject is never aired because the Treasury too dependant on speed scameras.

14 Jul 2005

Quote by hitch631
Quite frankly your a bit off a CUNT to be doing that speed

Quote by hitch631
dumb ass fuckers like you abuse the system..

Quote by hitch631
dick head..........................

Quote by AUP regarding UNACCEPTABLE behaviour
# Abusive or aggressive behaviour towards other people on here.

hitch631, Please read the site AUP regarding abusive behaviour. If you cannot express yourself without such abusive language your time here will be very short!! rolleyes

:roll: :roll:

15 Jul 2005

Ooh had to reply here so many points. I could link to a lot of other replies to very similar discussions on a car-related board I have been known to frequent in the past but that'd probably be against AUP.
Someone mentioned 5-10% over/under-reading of speedos? By law they're not allowed to underread, only overread, and up to 5% I think (so as Jags says at 70mph indicated on the speedo you're doing a few mph less. How much depends on tyres (tread left), and one or two other accuracy/calibration things.
I totally agree about speed being appropriate to conditions. I have a pretty sporty car with good brakes that I know can stop from 100 quicker and in considerably shorter distance than some cars can stop from 70-80 but I still almost never touch 100. It's just too much faster than other traffic to be flying past someone that quickly, distance-per-second/reaction time isn't conducive to avoiding anything,
I also think that if they had a look and increased the major road speed limits (certainly not slow compared to other countries and with the type of roads we have), people would still speed and it would just raise the overall speeds. I don't think it would make a lot of difference to the number of accidents, but it would make them a little more serious. It's like air travel - very very safe (much more so than any road anywhere, especially per mile), but cos you're miles up and travelling so fast, collisions/crashes are so much more fatal.

Quote by rogerthedragon
It is also rather interesting to note when talking about all the evil speeding people on the motorways that most of the time you need to exceed 70 to keep up with the traffic in anything other than the slowest lane. - so that means two thirds of drivers on the motorways are exceeding the speed limit. And to keep up in the outside lane you are probably looking at 90 mph most of the time.
Rather than trying to make money out of people doing the same things as everyone else maybe it would be a good idea to re-assess the speed limits on motorways to reflect the safety/breaking distances of modern cars.
Motorways are still mile for mile by far the safest roads to travel on even at 100mph.
Roger the Dragon

Yep, but you still get a few old cars on the roads that shouldn't be doing more than 60-70 - do we have a separate limit for them? Separate lanes of the motorway? Not allow them on main roads? A minefield of arguments... It's down to the driver to act responsibly and appropriately for the conditions.
I've seen it chucking it down so hard my windscreen wipers on full whack made it hard to see more than a car or two ahead on a dual carriageway, you couldn't see the road it was just a carpet of rain bouncing off the road: I was in the middle lane doing about 50mph and about comfortable with it, a good gap in front, and much less capable cars than mine were flying past at 80, 90.... Beggars belief!
Worries me how close some drivers get behind me too (although I have a way of dealing with them... drop down a gear, squeeze the brakes rather firmly then floor it back up again so there's no chance they'll actually hit me - they shit themselves temporarily and then behave a bit better usually. Not to be condoned though.).

Quote by smokerjim
Just to follow on from Roger, I'd like to remind everyone that Mototrway speed limits were introduced by Barbara Castle after some horrific accidents involving supercars ( AC Cobras, E-Types, etc ) rear ending family cars ( Ford Anglias, etc ) at high speed. At the time it was very nessesary, but when was the last time you saw an Anglia on the road?
Ah-ha! I hear you say high speed leads to greater braking distances, just look on the back of the Highway Code to see how big they are already at 70mph. True but those are the distances for a Ford Anglia ( at the time, the biggest selling car ) and a few years ago Top Gear did a test to see how accurate those distances are, between an Anglia, a Land Rover Discovery, and a Porsche 911 ( ie old, mordern ( not great brakes ) modern ( great brakes ) and the two modern cars trounced the Anglia, even after the Disco locked up!
If the world ( or at least engineering ) progresses, why can't the law / government? At the least a public review is long overdue - and any recommendation for an increase would be welcomed by the majority of people, I'm sure ( going by the sympathy here for someone that quite excessively broke the limit - and that is a gross generalisation ), or is the reason the subject is never aired because the Treasury too dependant on speed scameras.

I agree they need a discussion in the public eye, but I think 30mph is fast enough for built up areas. The more annoying issue is making sure limits are signed well enough, and that they're sensible for the type of road. Way too many roads with stupid (too low or too high) limits - although it's worse with too-low than too-high it must be said, from personal experience. I've still been down a road and thought the limit was too fast for it, and that some people trying to make use of that limit even in good conditions might be overdoing it a little.
Mmm... Don't see anyone there complaining on the extra money on the books from the cameras. They're supposed to spend it on related things like improving road safety.. Dunno if they have though.
Ok, do excuse me, I can go on sometimes... smile

15 Jul 2005

Quote by breezer
I also think that if they had a look and increased the major road speed limits (certainly not slow compared to other countries and with the type of roads we have), people would still speed and it would just raise the overall speeds. I don't think it would make a lot of difference to the number of accidents, but it would make them a little more serious. It's like air travel - very very safe (much more so than any road anywhere, especially per mile), but cos you're miles up and travelling so fast, collisions/crashes are so much more fatal.

Not true IMO. People that currently speed are driving at a pace they consider safe for the conditions and car. Should that speed fall within the limit, I doubt they'd go out of their way to go ever faster. There's always going to be some idiots who do it for the hell of it, but that's the case whatever the limit. There's a percentile rule that states x% (85, IIRC) will drive at a safe speed on any stretch of road, and limits should be set to that level. Makes sense to me, after all, if 85% are breaking the limit then that either means an extremely high accident rate, or the current obsession with speed killing is rubbish. Of course it can also mean a lowering of limits on certain roads, but I have no problem with that either, so long as everything is done fairly (not bloody likely when politicians get involved).

Yep, but you still get a few old cars on the roads that shouldn't be doing more than 60-70 - do we have a separate limit for them? Separate lanes of the motorway? Not allow them on main roads? A minefield of arguments... It's down to the driver to act responsibly and appropriately for the conditions.

The driver acting responsibly is exactly the key, And I genuinely believe a lot of drivers do, those that don't are not just going too fast, they may be going very slowly, or driving half asleep, etc. Drivers of rare or classic (or any enthusiast in general) cars tend to understand their cars better than most, and drive within the cars limits as well as their own. Once again, you're always going to get idiots, but no more than there currently are.

I agree they need a discussion in the public eye, but I think 30mph is fast enough for built up areas. The more annoying issue is making sure limits are signed well enough, and that they're sensible for the type of road. Way too many roads with stupid (too low or too high) limits - although it's worse with too-low than too-high it must be said, from personal experience. I've still been down a road and thought the limit was too fast for it, and that some people trying to make use of that limit even in good conditions might be overdoing it a little.

Depending on the area, time, and road type and layout, 30 can be far too fast even. But because it's the limit, people try and stick to it. This is the problem with speed limits though, they restrict speeds on roads where those that can can't, but they give those that can't the impression they should. If you see what I mean (it's late).

Mmm... Don't see anyone there complaining on the extra money on the books from the cameras. They're supposed to spend it on related things like improving road safety.. Dunno if they have though.
Ok, do excuse me, I can go on sometimes...

The trouble with cameras in particualr, and speeding fines in general is they are a fantastic source of revenue. You've got the camera partnerships creating jobs and wealth, the police meeting figures and recieving bonuses, and the courts and government taking a fair amount in. Plus of course points mean higher insurance, which just so happens to be taxed and a nice money spinner for the government too. It's win win, the public are convinced speeders are the root of all evil, so politicians are looked upon favourably, the insurance companies get an excuse to make more money, some of which is skimmed off, the camera partnerships continue to pay the top executives, and the police can finally meet performance targets. So long as the limits are never properly set, and cameras are never placed where they might catch the reletively few loonies instead of the reletively many safe but nippy drivers, everyone is happy other than the motorist. But as the motorist was responsible for every environmental and social disaster since the extintion of the dinosaurs, that's alright.

15 Jul 2005

Quote by breezer
Worries me how close some drivers get behind me too (although I have a way of dealing with them... drop down a gear, squeeze the brakes rather firmly then floor it back up again so there's no chance they'll actually hit me - they shit themselves temporarily and then behave a bit better usually. Not to be condoned though.).

I purposely stay out of most "motoring" threads these days.
I just wanted to nip into this one to berate you for that ^^^^^^^ breezer.
It is one of the most stupid, dangerous 'habits' I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.
No - the car/truck should not be parking itself on your back bumper. Nor should you, or anyone else attempt to extract anysort of retribution whilst driving.
Disclaimer:
db is fully aware there are as many poor driving habits exhibited by truck/van/bike/cars drivers by percentage.

15 Jul 2005

Quote by Shambolic
I also think that if they had a look and increased the major road speed limits (certainly not slow compared to other countries and with the type of roads we have), people would still speed and it would just raise the overall speeds. I don't think it would make a lot of difference to the number of accidents, but it would make them a little more serious.

Not true IMO. People that currently speed are driving at a pace they consider safe for the conditions and car. Should that speed fall within the limit, I doubt they'd go out of their way to go ever faster.
Re. your later point (yes I got it), it could push the irresponsible drivers already going too fast for themselves/the car to drive even faster?
I've never seen it happen but I would swear that drivers suddenly braking for speed cameras has caused a fair few accidents on otherwise safe roads. I know I've been guilty of this myself, mostly accidentally letting it creep up or having just had some 'fun' and not realising til I notice the lines on the road and check the speedo.

Quote by Shambolic
There's always going to be some idiots who do it for the hell of it, but that's the case whatever the limit.

Agree. I'd much rather have those idiots speeding at 30mph over 70mph than at 30mph over 90mph (don't read anything into those numbers, just random). Depends whether that's how they speed, always pushing the limit by <x> or always try to do constant speed <y>.

Quote by Shambolic
..or the current obsession with speed killing is rubbish

You hit the nail on the head there I think! Sure, there should be limits and they should come down hard on those who speed irresponsibly and keep the public seeing it as anti-social, but they do overlabour the importance pure speed has a lot.
There've been a few times on say, Top Gear or other driving show where they've taken the public and asked them to guess how shortly they can stop from <x> speed and maybe then placed a cone or a dummy where they think they can stop by. More of them than not then proceed to knock the dummy over and some still doing a fair lick.
Nowadays with technology, you could put a warning light on the dash to show when you're too way too close to the car in front (for a length of time, to avoid distracting people when close manoevering / coming up to overtake). Easy enough to link to the speedo and distance sensors.

Quote by Shambolic
Depending on the area, time, and road type and layout, 30 can be far too fast even. But because it's the limit, people try and stick to it. This is the problem with speed limits though, they restrict speeds on roads where those that can can't, but they give those that can't the impression they should. If you see what I mean (it's late).

Agree. And I do. It was late when I posted too, and was in Barcelona running around doing last minute shopping earlier in the day so I was kinda tired too.

Plus of course points mean higher insurance, which just so happens to be taxed and a nice money spinner for the government too.

I hadn't realised that's another win for them too! Basts! mad

properly set, and cameras are never placed where they might catch the reletively few loonies instead of the reletively many safe but nippy drivers,

That's what turns the public against them. Not that we can do a lot about it, they're here to stay. If they were to scrap cameras along otherwise safe and accident-free M-roads and fast A-roads, put some of them at blackspots and where (from police experience) people tend to speed excessively/dangerously and plenty of warning signs; then not come down quite so hard on those who were being safe (albeit not obeying the limits), and the public could see that, then I think we'd all be a lot more receptive to them. It'll never happen...
Ooh and those drivers that sit in the right-hand lane with 2 other free lanes and noone to overtake for a good long time... But that's another thread in the making.

15 Jul 2005

Quote by dambuster
No - the car/truck should not be parking itself on your back bumper. Nor should you, or anyone else attempt to extract any sort of retribution whilst driving.

Nope, I know you're right. Let me just say that if they stayed there then I would be worrying about it for as long as they were behind me which might affect my driving while trying to keep an eye on them. I know it's their fault if they do crash into me and they'd be the ones risking more, and a 'better' solution would be to slow down and wait for them to pass and let them bother someone else but I have done it.
To be honest it's almost never big trucks who do it, mainly boy racer types in modified hot 'supermini' hatches (not to cast a generalisation though I'm sure there are lots of responsible drivers of modified sporty cars, I have seen them).
ok my piece said, end of that one (to try and avoid pulling you in dambuster).

15 Jul 2005

if u dinnt get pulled over and stoped they cant prove it was u drivin get a good solicitor and they might be able to get u off the prosecution has to prove it was u driving if they cant u should get off

15 Jul 2005

Quote by scouse82
if u dinnt get pulled over and stoped they cant prove it was u drivin get a good solicitor and they might be able to get u off the prosecution has to prove it was u driving if they cant u should get off

Sadly the European Court's human rights legislation ( specifically article 23, the right to not self incriminate - think of America's 5th Amendment ) has been tested in this country, viz motoring offences, and legally the police and CPS have been given carte blanche to demand who was in control of the vehicle at the time of the offence. In plain English, you are legally obliged to say who was driving, even if it was you. Sorry. sad

15 Jul 2005

A friend of mine was an MP, I know, I know I hang my head in shame... smile

He informed me that the main reason the national speed limit on a motorway has remained at 70 mph is to conserve fuel.
The fact that most, if not all, modern cars can handle speeds in excess of the national speed limit is irrelevant. The chances of it being raised to, say, 80 mph while we use hydrocarbons in motor vehicles are nil. We definitely won't meet our carbon emissions targets if it is rolleyes

As to speeding. We've all done it. I think that the issue is where the speeding takes place. It is my opinion that you should travel at a speed appropriate to the road, surroundings and conditions at the time. Speeding near a school or where children etc are present you should be locked up, car crushed, mega fine, retake your test, i.e the book should be thrown at you. On a dry, clear, empty, motorway you shouldn't even be stopped. Unfortunately parts of our society would abuse such a system therefore we have draconian laws.

15 Jul 2005

as to the point of people braking for speed cameras, I have seen an accident caused by unnecassery braking,,the car which was travelling below the speed limit braked heavily at the very last second,the 2 sixteen year old kids on scooters managed to brake without hitting it,unfortunately the truck travelling behind them didn't or couldn't stop in time,,,the result being two dead kids,,I wonder how their parents felt when they were told they couldn't be buried in open caskets,,,
safety cameras my arse mad

15 Jul 2005

and how would the result have been different if a genuine emergency had occured?
How much did this vehicle slow down by when it hit the breaks? and just how close were the vehicles behind travelling that they could not react to this change in speed?
Speed cameras do not cause collisions - drivers do.
Kat

15 Jul 2005

the car was travelling at approx 45/47 mph in a 50 limit it didn't just slow,it braked heavily by the accident investigators report (as this 'accident' was used in one of the the coroners reports up here that actually cited a speed camera as a major cause of an accident)the car braked to approx 25 mph in about 30ft,this was a clear stretch of road,no corners,no nearby junctions,no pedestrian access,on a bright sunny day,the camera (as cited by the coroner) was clearly just a source of revenue as it was not placed in an accident blackspot (and has since been removed to comply with the new safety guidelines) and lastly,if the camera hadn't been there the two kids would still be alive,no two ways about it,,the point I am trying to make is this,nobody was speeding that day and yet the presence of a (safety) camera,cost two innocent lives,and that is two too many in anyones books,,the lords of gatso have simply created a whole new hazard for our roads which were lethal enough in the first place,,not that I don't agree with cameras near blackspots and schools etc and yes 30mph (or even 20mph)limits in built up areas are fair enough,,but what price human life,,sorry if I'm ranting,but I was in the other lane next to the truck when it happened,,and I re-live the experience most I personally will never forgive whoever put that camera there and hold them wholly responsible!!

25 Jul 2005

Hi everyone,
had the hearing today and as promised here was the verdict:
14days disqualification, Â£300 fine, Â£35 court costs.
I know I know - i've got off lightly redface

one things for sure i won't be putting myself through it again though, better to be late than dead on arrival!!!
chris x

25 Jul 2005

Did you get a brief, and do you think he made a difference? Will you sell your mode of transport for something similar, yet slower? Will you get in contact with your local police force / RoSPA / Scamera partnership, etc for recommendation on extra training? That last might not be a bad idea.

25 Jul 2005

Hi Jim,
Yes i got a brief and think he made all the difference. He advised me that the court could have dealt with this in two ways.
1) To give me an instant ban for driving over 30mph over the limit which would not give me additional points and would not be totted up to the ones i had. As this ban is usually weeks rather than months then i would be able to keep my job as i can make short term sacrifices (and more significantly with sacrifices made by family, friends and colleagues) to make sure that i make it to work and visit the places i need to within my job.
2) 6 points would be added to the ones i have which i have already and would take me over the 12 points mark and subsequently a ban. With this option i would have been looking at a longer ban (probably 6 months) and subsequently would have had to plea exceptional hardship as i would have lost my job and as a result my family would have suffered for my stupidity. As my brief was satisfied that this was genuinely the case he informed the court that my plea of hardship would have reduced my ban to probably the same duration as item 1 any way.
This hardship plea can only be used once over a period of 3 yrs and was the real benfit of option 1 that i would not need it as for the short term i could avoid losing my job.
Fortunately for me the court agreed with my brief tha option 1 was sufficient for me especially as my employer had written to the court to confirm the mandatory requirement for a licence in order to carry out my work and also that they had explained the seriousness of the incident to me and were satisfied of my genuine regret.
Hope the above makes sens, if not ask and i'll try to explain it better.
As for my vehicle i will not be changing it as the problem has not been with the vehicle but with the idiot behind the wheel.
I think your comments about re-training are good ones and i'll probably look into it
cheers
chris