Can i legally avoid a Speeding fine/points?

Happychappy

goldspanners wrote: »

but its supposed to be about safety, not revenue. as we are so often told.

scrap the vans,clerks,pr,offices,equipment and then no need for the revenue. simple.

if its about safety put the vans in areas where speeding motorists could cause some real harm. not on long straight motorways and dual carrigeways.

How long have you been off the medicine for ?

goldspanners

Happychappy wrote: »

How long have you been off the medicine for ?

why would that post make you think i even need any?
seems like common sense to me.

louismcd

nic_santorini wrote: »

some police forces offer a driver awareness course that costs £80 instead of your 3 points, so in total the speeding will cost you £140 but would probably be better on your car insurance and 74 in a 60 in a clear offence and is motorway speed - so I would not advise court because the magistates will just double or treble your fine for wasting their time.

Thanks, will look into that.

DGJsaver

goldspanners wrote: »

why would that post make you think i even need any?
seems like common sense to me.

Are you on a wind up ?

If some !!!!!! is doing 95mph on a motorway , even a `long straight motorway` (dont know many other sorts but hey ho) and he clips another car/the barrier/doesnt stop in time at traffic , he`ll kill/injure more people than wrapping himself round a tree on a B road


Yes ?

DGJsaver

louismcd wrote: »

Thanks, will look into that.

Insurance companies dont increase your premium for just the three points so maybe its chaper to pay the £60 and take the points.....(Admiral and Norwich Union Sales people told me that)

goldspanners

DGJsaver wrote: »

Are you on a wind up ?

If some !!!!!! is doing 95mph on a motorway , even a `long straight motorway` (dont know many other sorts but hey ho) and he clips another car/the barrier/doesnt stop in time at traffic , he`ll kill/injure more people than wrapping himself round a tree on a B road


Yes ?

yes, but im sure if he clipped another car at 70 or the barrier then it would probably have a similar effect. (i know of a few motorways with some bends on them, hey ho).
on the B road he could potentially go through the wall of someones house rather than just into a tree. like this accident that happened near me the other week.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/73365-three-die-in-hamilton-car-crash/

HO87

nic_santorini wrote: »

some police forces offer a driver awareness course that costs £80 instead of your 3 points, so in total the speeding will cost you £140 but would probably be better on your car insurance and 74 in a 60 in a clear offence and is motorway speed - so I would not advise court because the magistates will just double or treble your fine for wasting their time.

If you are offered a Speed Awareness Course then you do not pay the Fixed Penalty as well - the course is offered as an alternative to the FPN in toto not in addition to it. That means no £60 fine and no points. So, in the case of an £80 course your only outlay is £80. The cost of courses varies around the country from between £60 and £110 depending on the county/police force area you were NIP'd in. Some forces will also allow you to undertake a course close to you if you do not live within their force area.

louismcd

DGJsaver wrote: »

Insurance companies dont increase your premium for just the three points so maybe its chaper to pay the £60 and take the points.....(Admiral and Norwich Union Sales people told me that)

Many of them don't. I got points in 2003 (six months after getting full licence) and, as you will know, insurance companies ask for convictions in the last 5 years even if the points were only valid for 3. This year would have been the first year since i started driving that i wouldn't have had to declare any points.

I'm gutted more than anything as now for the first 10 years of me driving i will have declared 3 SP30 points each renewal.

Pee

esuhl wrote: »

Strangely, this is exactly what they do. I say strangely because in general you are not required to incriminate yourself in other aspects of law.

I believe a couple tried it a few years ago - each denying that they were the driver, and arguing that they cannot be forced to reveal the driver's identity because it would mean self-incrimination. It looked like they had a decent chance of winning... till they lost!

What about the Hamilton case? As in Neil and Mrs hamilton. They won as they could not remember which was driving. And manchester United didn't know who was driving one of their company cars and got a huge fine, which you might think they would only have accepted if the driver was a certain Sir Fergueson...

But be very careful not to lie. There was a woman who blamed her foreign resident sister and when it was shown that was not true, she went to prison for a little while.

It might be worth knowing if you go over on points that a solicitor can probably help and it will mess up insurance costs, but you might get a short ban if you need to drive for work....

Pee

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Nice idea, but rather naive.

It has happened to both me and my father. He received a NIP for 48 in a 30 (was doing 24-26). I received one for 39 in a 30 (photos showed they'd caputred a telegraph pole instead, and I knew I was NOT speeding).

Of course you will say that if you know you're not speeding then you can take it all the way. But you have to await the issue of a summons and plead not guilty before you are even entitled to see the evidence against you.

How many people assume that the camera never lies and just pay up? Or don't have the courage to allow a summons to be issued against them, for fear of a much harsher penalty?

My ex got done twice by the same speed camera on the same day according to the camera exactly an hour apart. You could even see the same white van in the both photos. The police said that you could see a woman in one of the photos. I assure you I would have noticed if that had been the case! He had been doing 40 in a 30, or maybe even 42 as he thought it was a 40. I read up and if it went to court, the risk of 6 points and maybe a larger fine... maybe not, he wasn't working... meant that taking the two tickets was the easiest and best thing to do.