another speeding ticket help

BFG_2

I'm late to this posting but there are several ways that you can avoid any points from a camera speeding offence. These range from the cunning (but legal) to the downright dodgy.

tkblueyonder

As a Professional LGV driving Instructor ( 2 years with the London Fire Brigade) i have to agree with the telling offs you are getting here mate, you only have to look at the nearest set of railings to see the blatant lack of respect for speed on our roads....!!! more cameras i say or harsher penalties now

MarkyMarkD

IvanOpinion wrote:

MMD, I am not understanding why you think there should be a reward for sensible driving .. we are all meant to drive sensibly all the time, sensible driving should not rewarded but wreckless driving should be punished.

Your insurance probably costs about 30-50% more to cover people who do not have insurance or make false claims. There are many ways to scam insurance companies and they are getting much more prevalent and the only person suffering is the innocent careful driver. Why should somebody who has no insurance be allowed to claim off somebody elses ... yes they go to court get a slap on the wrist for having no insurance and then make thousands on false whiplash claims .. jeez some cars even inherit several passengers between the time of the accident and the time of the whiplash claims. Although one of the growing scams now is someone deliberately disabling the brake lights and jamming the brakes on in front of another car causing an 'accident' ... of course it is ALWAYS the car behinds fault.

The concept of self insurance means you can insure yourself for as much or as little as you like or nothing. It puts the onus and responsibility back onto each individual driver to provide cover that suits their purpose and lifestyle and stops many of the false claims that add so much to our premiums.

Ivan

Reward for sensible driving / penalty for reckless driving - it's all semantics and comes out the same in the wash.

Fraudulent claims are a different matter. I don't see how making good drivers bear the financial impact of numpty drivers colliding with them will make things better in this regard.

tomstickland

Some amazing conclusions have been drawn as this thread lumbers on.

In a lot of cases speed cannot "cause" an accident, but it can obviously make the results worse. In some cases speed can cause an accident, for example tractor pulling out of field on narrow B road, car going round corner too fast to be able to stop in time.

I've been looking at accident stories in the local paper and the headlines always blather on about speed and then you read the stories and pictures to work out what happened. Generally youths leaving the road and hitting trees/buildings in single vehicle accidents. Would placing some odious limit on these roads prevent these accidents? Car hit barrier on motorway slip road. Driver made mistake assuming there were two lanes, not one. Was speed to blame?

I can think of at least one location where the speed limit is completey unjustifiable. It's on the A38 south of Bristol. There's a 2 mile straight betwen two villages, it could be 3 lanes wide, it has 10m grass verges either side and it was obviouslly once a 60 mph national limit. It's now a 30 limit. Could someone exceeding this "get what's coming to them" or "deserve a permanent ban".

Speeding annoys me as much as most people. I regularly encounter cars halfway accross the central lines, obviously exceeding the 30 limit in a local village. Not only exceed, but also so crap that they can't hold the car in the lane, something which is pretty easy even if they were doing 60mph.

Then again, I think a decent emphasis should be placed on paying attention, observing, thinking, planning and generally getting the act of driving together. Somone did some simple maths on 40 vs 30 and realised that if someone was driving at 30mph but took another 0.5s to react then they'd travel further than someone who was travelleing at 40mph and who reacted more quickly. I'm not using this to justify doing 40 in a 30, but it's to show that speed isn't the only aspect.

Finally, we have a 40 limit road near me and I'd say that about 95% of people stick to this limit. ie: it's a sensible limit. A few are calling for a 30 limit, which, no doubt, will then be ignored by about 50%. In the balance it'll probably be no safer and it'll add to frustration, a factor that is very bad for road safety.

Churchmouse

I think most of us agree that inappropriate speed is a bad thing! I'm sorry to say that not all speed limits are sensible and appropriate to the area/conditions where they are set, but totally agree they must be observed. I hate speed cameras because I believe they are mostly just revenue raisers and are seen as a total solution. I would like far more traffic police who could enforce against bad driving. Just driving within speed limits does not make anyone a good or safe driver. The problem with relying on cameras to do the policing is they have no way of reporting the driver who tailgates, spends more time looking at their passenger than the road, undertakes, takes both hands off the wheel, talks on a hand-held mobile, etc etc. It certainly appears to be the case that as long as you keep out of bus lanes and keep the speed limit in the vincinity of speed cameras then you can pretty much do as you like! I would much prefer we return to policing by real people (police!) who can have a word, advise or prosecute as appropriate to improve all aspects of driving. They could even catch those who now drive with fake number plates to avoid the fixed penalty fines.

Poppycat

I agree regarding more Police and yes there are places were speed limits could be increased in some cases, however drivers should abide by the limist whether we like them or not.

There are cameras on the horizon that can do more than just pick of speed merchants, they can detect stolen vehciles etc but by enlarge I think they are mobile cameras installed in Police cars, if you see Traffic cops on Thursday night think thats when its on, they were shown.

Churchmouse

I hope I made it clear I keep all speed limits whether i agree with them or not!! In fact there are many places where I think the limits are too high, many more back streets should be 20. It's worth remembering that speed limits are just that, the maximum speed, not the speed that must be done!!

wobbley

Poppycat wrote:

There are cameras on the horizon that can do more than just pick of speed merchants, they can detect stolen vehciles etc but by enlarge I think they are mobile cameras installed in Police cars, if you see Traffic cops on Thursday night think thats when its on, they were shown.

I think you'll find the fixed ANPR number plate recognition cameras have been in use some time. They are linked to the National Insurance Database and also check if the vehicle has a current vehicle excise licence with the DVLA and/or if the vehicle is stolen and in the PNC. No doubt the information these cameras provide is used by other "authorities". But they aren't speed cameras and from a road safety aspect the only villains they target are those with no insurance or road tax.

Churchmouse wrote:

It's worth remembering that speed limits are just that, the maximum speed, not the speed that must be done!!

I remember someone once saying to me "It's a limit - not a target"

Crabman

How many millions did the treasurary make from speeding fines last year??

UNICORN_2

Speed Limits are a red herring, it's inappropriate speed for the conditions that is the killer.