Speeding ticket - advice please

alastairq

=Pew Pew Pew Lasers!;23292457...of course an entirely unbiased site.

In what way? As far as I can tell , they simply give the answers a lot of folk don't want to hear.

Yes, offences that are actually dangerous. Unlike exceeding a speed limit.

So...setting oneself up as a self-appointed expert on whether exceeding a speed limit might or might not result in an element of danger is the right way to form an opinion on safety?
Just because nothing happens, doesn't mean the levels of risk have not been raised beyond an acceptable level.
Careless driving may not actually result in an actual danger....but MAY do so.....as does exceeding the speed limit.

Yes there are.

Absolutely not..exceeding the speed limit is a absolute offence.....of course, one can make an attempt at pleading mitigating circumstances, but the offence will still stand.

[To which the most common reposte will be, why be in the situation in the first place, as a competent, careful driver.]

However, crack on.

One does that by ignoring it, as most people will when a speed limit is set inappropriately low.

Which is total anarchy, and unacceptable. Burglary is rife, so why not reduce the offence level on that too? After all, the 'victim' is only going to claim on their insurance, and wont turn down an over-generous settlement on moral grounds, will they?

Too many drivers ignore limits because they simply could not care less about how OTHER road users are going to cope with those limits.
They are totally oblivious to the fact that speed limits are often set to allow OTHER road users to cope better with that traffic.

Laws become unjust when a majority ignore them.

laws become unjust when they interfere with what too many people want to do.
Is that what you're saying?
The majority don't ignore speed limits......as it happens.

Ah yes, lets perform one of the most dangerous manoeuvres on the road, but do it while observing the speedometer. That's much safer.

If , as a driver, one cannot factor in the speedometer check along with the other essential observations, then one really needs to address one's standards of driving.
Why should overtaking by exceeding the speed limit be any more dangerous than at any other time? Why should it matter to a driver who is perfectly willing to flout the law anyways?
In other words, why are you looking at your speedo at such a time....when you haven't the slightest interest in complying anyway?

Or...is the limit actually there for a valid reason?

There are many drivers who do just that, I wouldn't call many of them good, or safe

Perhaps you wouldn't.......However, a driver who considers they know better than those who impose the limits in the first instance, has a rather inflated opinion as to THEIR capabilities as a driver.

which is worrying for other road users.

alastairq

understand sometimes speed is needed and the speed limit must be broke, for example rushing to hospital

actually, there is no excuse for exceeding the speed limit.Even blue light drivers have to exercise extra special care when exceeding the posted limit.

A private individual has no exemption under the law.

[NO point rushing to hospital if someone else becomes a caualty because of your excessive speed.]

However, as I stated above, if you felt sufficiently aggrieved at receiving a NIP under those circumstances, then opt for your day in court, and...although guilty of the offence, plead mitigating circumstances..[produce your evidence, of course] to allow the magistrates the opportunity of reducing the effect of the punishment.
[BTW, there is NO signal, or indication, sign, or proceedure, laid down in the Highway Code, which states that road users must move out of the way because that car is on an 'emergency' drive to a hospital.
So there will be no allowances made by other road users......which one would have to cope with...so the whole idea is risky..besides, one is just as likely to get to the destination just as quickly if one complies.....then there's those red traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, junctions and roundabouts, a whole host of things that one needs to cope with, on top of excessive speed.
Magistrates will take all these things into account, even if you dont.]

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

alastairq wrote: »

In what way? As far as I can tell , they simply give the answers a lot of folk don't want to hear.

Its a site for police officers. Hardly what I would call impartial.

alastairq wrote: »

So...setting oneself up as a self-appointed expert on whether exceeding a speed limit might or might not result in an element of danger is the right way to form an opinion on safety?
Just because nothing happens, doesn't mean the levels of risk have not been raised beyond an acceptable level.
Careless driving may not actually result in an actual danger....but MAY do so.....as does exceeding the speed limit.

I pay little or no attention to speed limits. I pay every attention to the prevailing conditions. I set my speed based upon those conditions. Rarely do I bother to look at the speedometer, it is an irrelevance to safe driving.

I am not a careless driver. I am more careful than most.

alastairq wrote: »

Which is total anarchy, and unacceptable. Burglary is rife, so why not reduce the offence level on that too? After all, the 'victim' is only going to claim on their insurance, and wont turn down an over-generous settlement on moral grounds, will they?

That is an extremely poor example. Burglary is not perpetrated by a significant percentage of the population of this country.

alastairq wrote: »

Too many drivers ignore limits because they simply could not care less about how OTHER road users are going to cope with those limits.
They are totally oblivious to the fact that speed limits are often set to allow OTHER road users to cope better with that traffic.

I've read this statement several times, and I am none the wiser as to its meaning.

alastairq wrote: »

laws become unjust when they interfere with what too many people want to do.
Is that what you're saying?
The majority don't ignore speed limits......as it happens.

I disagree.

alastairq wrote: »

If , as a driver, one cannot factor in the speedometer check along with the other essential observations, then one really needs to address one's standards of driving.

If one needs the use of a speedometer to check the safety of his driving, one needs to stop driving completely, and if you believe that overtakes should be done while observing the speedometer, then God help any other road users around you.

alastairq wrote: »

Why should overtaking by exceeding the speed limit be any more dangerous than at any other time? Why should it matter to a driver who is perfectly willing to flout the law anyways?

Another sentence that makes no sense, and appears not to represent anything that I have said.

alastairq wrote: »

In other words, why are you looking at your speedo at such a time....when you haven't the slightest interest in complying anyway?

I haven't said any such thing, and I would prefer you not to imply that I have.

alastairq wrote: »

Or...is the limit actually there for a valid reason?

Yes, it exists so the authorities can be shown to be 'doing something' about a problem that is almost always not caused by excessive speed.

alastairq wrote: »

Perhaps you wouldn't.......However, a driver who considers they know better than those who impose the limits in the first instance, has a rather inflated opinion as to THEIR capabilities as a driver.

I know a sight more about driving than your average councillor.

alastairq wrote: »

which is worrying for other road users.

Only those who place their faith in an analogue measuring device.

Doodles22

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Its a site for police officers. Hardly what I would call impartial.



I pay little or no attention to speed limits. I pay every attention to the prevailing conditions. I set my speed based upon those conditions. Rarely do I bother to look at the speedometer, it is an irrelevance to safe driving.

I am not a careless driver. I am more careful than most.



That is an extremely poor example. Burglary is not perpetrated by a significant percentage of the population of this country.



I've read this statement several times, and I am none the wiser as to its meaning.



I disagree.



If one needs the use of a speedometer to check the safety of his driving, one needs to stop driving completely, and if you believe that overtakes should be done while observing the speedometer, then God help any other road users around you.



Another sentence that makes no sense, and appears not to represent anything that I have said.



I haven't said any such thing, and I would prefer you not to imply that I have.



Yes, it exists so the authorities can be shown to be 'doing something' about a problem that is almost always not caused by excessive speed.



I know a sight more about driving than your average councillor.



Only those who place their faith in an analogue measuring device.

Get a life!

ben_and_elly

Apologies, have had computer problems for ages! Yes, we have photo, which also shows national speed limit signs

ben_and_elly

There was a 30 speed limit before we entered the village.
Village ended (ie no more properties) and approx 50m after houses, road straight and national speed sign. Shame can't upload photo, makes it much clearer to see

ben_and_elly

Doodles22 wrote: »

You went over the speed limit.
You admit you did 38 miles in a 30 zone, none the less you say you did this because the driver was behind you was getting annoyed, so that makes it okay in your mind.
You should have pulled in and let him pass then, you could have also carried on and ignored him.
You did the speed now you pay for the ticket and get the points, what if a child ran out in the road?!
If you saw a ball rolling into the road will you speed up to avoid it or slow down?
Get to grips, pay your fine.
As for drivers course you wont get it, its upto 6 miles over, you have 8 miles over.
6 points for 3 years and a fine.

maybe it'll hep you be a better driver

Firstly, as you will see from my post. I stuck to 30mph where there were properties as I am aware of the posibilites of children/pets running out for some reason or other. Where I accelerated to 38, the road turns into a rural road, no houses, no pavements, just fields either side so no chance of anyone/thing running into path of car - not even an escaping bull/cow from the fields due to the height of the hedges!
As for being a better driver - no accidents (touch wood), no points......

The main point I was making - should a camera not be pointing towards a village to ensure speed limits are adhered to and not away from a village to catch cars that are now on rural road? How is that working as "SafePartnership" as the Police state they are doing?

ben_and_elly

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

Why not? If you are doing *less* than the posted speed limit, for whatever reason. And there is someone behind who wants to go faster, then you should pull over and let them go by.

Sadly there are so many people on the roads who don't do this and will cheerfully potter along at 35mph in a 60mph zone with a queue of traffic behind them.

I think you will find that speed limit signs are actually the MAXIMUM you should be travelling - not the expected. Although to be stuck behind someone travelling 35 in a 60 can be somewhat tedious!!

ben_and_elly

Doodles22 wrote: »

Is this post meant to be an attack?! :rolleyes:
I don't think really your whole post is very useful, infact it's all rubbish!
This guy did 38 miles in a 30 zone, what if he hit your child?!
Would you be coming on here giving it all to me or him?
Get down off your horse and face facts like the OP has too.
I tell you this, he will get 3 points and good job too as maybe he will be much for careful and a better driver!!!!!!! :rolleyes:
As for my most un called for, he asked for advice, I gave it.
That stands, 38 miles in a 30 zone is 3 points and a fine, no merit otherwise; if he had done 5 miles extra he would have got the course.
He had many ways to deal with the matter at the time, to name afew:

1) Pulling it to allow the other driver to pass

2) Carrying on his normal speed within 30 miles per hour

3) Turning a different way to allow the other car to go passed


He has done 8 miles faster than the law states he can on this road, if he had hit a child 8 miles faster he would have most likely KILLED THEM :mad:
So before you start attcking me, re-read what he did and then ask yourself, do you still think my post was uncalled for, maybe you've gfot caught speeding and thats why your so against it!!!

Face facts, 3 points and a fine.

Learn next time, SPEED KILLS :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

I am aware speed kills, but you have been on total defensive from the start. If you read my post, you will see that there were no houses about, so therefore, no liklihood of child running out.

ben_and_elly

Doodles22 wrote: »

Sounds like you've been busy Goldspanners
But I'm not directing my pots to ALL people who speed, but people feel its okay to speed and even though its the OP who has done it, are attacking me as they have got points and don't like the fact they have got caught:rolleyes:

I understand sometimes speed is needed and the speed limit must be broke, for example rushing to hospital etc but just because some numpty is behind you doesnt really sound very good does it;)

isn;t that a bit hypocritical? More likely to kill a child that way - speeding on way to hospital and therefore, less likely to be concentrating on those children playing ball at the side of the road.