Can i legally avoid a Speeding fine/points?

MissSunshine

was the speed limit definately 60? because i thought dual carriageway speed limit was 70 unless there are specific speed limit signs to the contrary.

Nail_Lad

goldspanners wrote: »

yep, i would go for this. obviously on roads where its safe to do so. like the germans.

The German limitless Autobahn is a myth. Most have a variable limit of some sort somewhere now (junctions etc) displayed electronically and all have fixed advisable limit above which your insurance is usually considered invalid.

I don't condone all limits imposed on certain roads (there will always be exceptions) but to have none without improved driving standards (the main problem) is simply asking for trouble.

MissSunshine wrote: »

was the speed limit definately 60? because i thought dual carriageway speed limit was 70 unless there are specific speed limit signs to the contrary.

Academic. He said the limit was 60. If it was 70 he was still caught over the limit.

goldspanners

Nail_Lad wrote: »

advisable limit

that sounds a good idea too.

HO87

Nail_Lad wrote: »

Academic. He said the limit was 60. If it was 70 he was still caught over the limit.

In the very strictest of senses this would be true but the standard ACPO guidance is that no action is taken unless the detected speed exceeds the posted limit by 10% + 2mph. At the speed alleged, 74mph, the OP would have not have been pursued and not therefore "caught".

Moving onto the thread as a whole, and at the risk of "being warmed up" but being a newbie here:A I was under the impression that when the law was being enforced it had to be enforced legally. That is to say that the police have to gather their evidence in accordance with the law; that a speed limit (in this case) had to be legal - that the relevant TRO was correctly formulated and was accurately reflected on the road - and that procedures were properly followed in accordance with legal requirements and timescales. As other posters have already suggested, I can see no difference with the OP's post in this case and a similar request for advice on the Parking Ticket Forum where it transpires that the PCN is wrongly constructed or that the necessary signage, for example, is absent. The fact that it happens to be that the OP had prima facie been "caught speeding" doesn't seem to have the slightest bearing on the issue of seeking some factual (rather than opinionated) advice.

There are numerous examples of cases where the equipment used by the police has been proved to be defective, wrongly operated or not legally approved; procedures (particularly with regard to the issuing of Notices of Intended Prosecution) seemingly ignored or overlooked and speed limits that were nothing of the sort - legally speaking. Are the posters who have taken the line (in various formats) "You were caught. Pay up" seriously suggesting that there is anything wrong in putting the prosecution to strict proof, or that the principle of being innocent until proven guilty should be abandonned? After all these tenets remain (just) two of the cornerstones of our judicial system or am I being far too naive?

In the Terry Gilliam film Brazil poor, innocent Mr Buttle is arrested for terrorism because the automated system that produced arrest warrants hiccoughed and typed a B instead of a T - its intended target being the real terrorist (played by Robert De Niro) Archie Tuttle. Regardless of the representations made on his behalf Mr Buttle remained incarcerated because "that was what the system said". Might not the situation the OP finds themself here be too different? Unless they are given the opportunity, through constructive advice, then they (and we) will never know. I respectfully suggest that those posters I've referred to are the very people who have (probably unwittingly) fallen victim to one of the most insidious aspects of the policing-by-technology culture that we now live under and that is, a la Brazil, "If the equipment says you were speeding, you were speeding".

At further risk of being accused of "well you would say that wouldn't you" I do not advocate speeding on the public road (there is a time and a place for it - on a circuit, for example). It is an offence and if fairly caught the culprit deserves the punishment meted out. However, my emphasis is on the word "fairly" and to assume that the OP is guilty and advise that they "pay up" simply because an accusation has been made seems to me to display a fundamental misunderstanding of or a lack of care about the way in which our justice system is intended to operate.

For a site that offers a very valuable service in an increasingly complicated and, in many respects, over-legislated world the reactions of some posters in this case seems to me to conflict somewhat with the ethos of the site and, frankly, from a newbie's POV, is a little surprising.

Anyway, back onto the OP's original requests:

Since the ending of the Hypothecation Scheme in Spring 2007 there is no requirement for the placing of signage warning of speed enforcement nor of the conspicuity of vehicles being used for that purpose.

At the speed alleged you are within the ACPO guidelines for a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty (£60 + 3 points). However, the issue of this is dependant upon you satisfactorily completing the return section of the Notice of Intended Prosecution you have (presumably) received. This is actually a separate legal document and is known as a Sec. 172 requirement. If you fail to complete this (including signing it) by naming yourself or whoever was driving and returning it within 28 days of your receipt of it then you render yourself liable to prosecution for the offence of Failing to Furnish. This would involve a case before the court and, on conviction, you would collect 6 points and a hefty fine - usually in the order of £300 though if your income is low this could be reduced.

If you fail to sign the form you may well find yourself being summonsed for the Failure to Furnish offence. Going "unsigned" is currently a legal manouevre available to those who are subject of speeding allegations in Scotland but it will not work in England or Wales (even North Wales).

Do not for a moment allow yourself to be sucked in by the urban myths of attempting to overpay the fine on the basis that it would foul-up the system. It won't and if your were to try it you may simply find that the Conditional Offer is withdrawn and the next thing that flops onto your doormat is a summons. Not a good idea.

System

louismcd wrote: »

Well i'm flatterd by the number of replies so thanks.:T

I just feel that the government get enough money out of us as it is and that speeding fines are an extra way of getting more money. They say that it is for safety, that is bullsh*t, it is for extra income. If you take a look at reports since speed camera's have been introduced accidents have actually increased.

Given some of these responses, you would think i had driven past a primary school at 74mph. Not the case at all.

So in response to my original question, before we got side tracked, i guess there is no way of avoiding these points!

Just trying to save a little bit of money, just like all of you who are on here.

Thanks

just a thought to save money dont speed =no fine =saving money !!!

louismcd

Lemonade_Pockets wrote: »

I don't no why some of you give ppl such a hard time about speeding. Fair enough the Op broke the law i think they accept that.
But whats wrong with trying to wriggle out of it if its possible. Just the same as trying to get parking tickets overturned.

I think the problem ppl have particularly with speeding is that the punishment doesn't always fit the crime. You can get 6 points and £500 fine for doing 99mph on a deserted motorway, which could cost you your job, will send your insurance premium through the roof etc etc.
Or if you steal a car tear !!!! round the streets with the police chasing you, get a 2month ban £200 court costs. Scumbag never bothers with insurance and doesn't have a job and possibly not a license. So cost to him £200, but let me guess bet he never pays it.

I'd be a lot happier to pay a speeding fine (should i ever get one) if the really dangerous ppl on the roads got the full weight of the law thrown at them too.

And that's exactly what i'm trying to do, wriggle out of it. If i had a choice of paying a fine and receiving 3 points on my licence and not paying a fine and not getting 3 points on my licence i know what i'd do. No brainer, i would have thought most people would be the same. Slightly different to stealing from Tesco...

mymatebob

louismcd wrote: »

And that's exactly what i'm trying to do, wriggle out of it. If i had a choice of paying a fine and receiving 3 points on my licence and not paying a fine and not getting 3 points on my licence i know what i'd do. No brainer, i would have thought most people would be the same. Slightly different to stealing from Tesco...

Depends.
Both acts are illegal (speeding and stealing)

Some people try to "wriggle out" of shoplifting

louismcd

Thanks for the information and advice, much appreciated.

davetrousers

It's not fair *Stamp Feet*, and repeat.

Oh look the fine and points are still there.

Pay up and move on!

louismcd

Have i said once that i'm not going to pay it????? NO!

I was purely asking if there was a way around it. When will this end?