Spped Camera

MarkyMarkD

I think that the OP needs to accept that they've committed the offence. Irrespective of who the police write to (and it's strange for the vehicle to supposedly be registered in both names - you can't do this unless it's owned by a business partnership IMHO).

The excuse about racing to get to a layby is tosh - if your child is dying, you STOP - there and then, not faff about driving to somewhere else. If you take that to court they won't believe you for a second.

Just take the penalty.

hankc35

Jorgan wrote:

Hank, is that the Pencoed junction of the M4? What amazes me by your comment, is that you have been caught at the same spot on numerous occasions. Haven't you thought of slowing down for this stretch of road?

Couple before MacArhthur Glen shopping ?? yeah, I do keep my eye out for them now as they seem to stick to the same bridge, but before they used to hide on 3 or 4 and I used to forget, or assume they were not there that day.

Just to add I actually got out of a 7th, I was caught doing 31 mph in a 30 outside Filton police station in Bristol, but they sent me a letter and said if I did a one day course that would be the end of it, so I did the course and it was laughable, everytime he asked me a question I just yorned at him and said nothing....

Its just a stupid covert tax, in the main the cameras have little to do with road safety, if they were about road safety they would put them outside schools rather than cash cow positions on motorways, I do find the finger wagging tut tut attitudes of little Englanders quite funny sometimes, especially the "You broke the law and you must pay" crowd :rotfl: WHATEVER

hankc35

Gorgeous_George wrote:

Shouldn't need to slow doen from 72-76mph on a motorway. Maybe its the size of the digression from posted speed limits that causes the Police to see sense. They probably wouldn't want the embarrassment of taking hank to court.

GG

Probably so, and personally I just think they want the low hanging fruit, the simple to get people who just cough up, they cant be bothered to work for the difficult stuff.

p1an0player

MarkyMarkD wrote:

The excuse about racing to get to a layby is tosh - if your child is dying, you STOP - there and then, not faff about driving to somewhere else. If you take that to court they won't believe you for a second.

Even if it was, for example, on a two-lane section of the A1 with fast lorries and hardly any hard shoulder?

MarkyMarkD

Yes, even then. On most roads like that you can pull onto the verge.

If my child was choking, I wouldn't be doing a risk analysis of stopping straight away - I'd be stopping straight away! That's all I meant.

martymcauley

You guys should come and live in northern ireland. we dont have gatsos over here because people keep cutting them down. put up two in belfast and they lasted two days. they have now bought a helicopter to catch bikers and have the usual sharp shooter in a hedge but thats about it.

Dammam

inmypocketnottheirs wrote:

I would use the tactic of once you receive the NIP of writing back to the issuing constabulary and asking for the photographic evidence as you are unsure of who was driving the vehicle at the time. Quite possibly more than one person drives the car and it could be quite reasonably argued that you do not know who was driving as x hrs on y day etc.
.

I did this myself and 'got off' (for want of a better phrase).
I don't feel at all guilty as I was driving to work at 6 am on a Sunday morning down a straight stretch of dual carriageway in beautiful conditions.
I was clocked at 81 on a 70 limit. The only other vehicles on the road were a parked lorry in the layby, which obscured the little white van parked in front of it.

Speed isn't necessarily the danger, inappropriate speed IS. However, I accept the point that many drivers wouldn't know what was appropriate if it hit them in the face. I think that tailgating, especially in the fast lane, is far more dangerous than anything else. Traffic police would be able to pick this up AND judge whether anyone was driving without due care. Cameras are a cheap moneymaking ploy. More police on the roads and more police on the sreets and we may be on the way to a better, safer society. (where's my soapbox when I need it?)

I have to say though Hank, yawning when asked questions shows a degree of arrogance and contempt which I would personally find unhealthy.

hankc35

>I have to say though Hank, yawning when asked questions shows a degree of >arrogance and contempt which I would personally find unhealthy.

Well, your probably right, but my level of contempt for these people far outweighs my personal arrogance.

The course I attended was only for people caught doing up to but not including 10% over a 30 mph limit, so 31's and 32's. They would not have prosecuted at those speeds anyway, and NO WAY were they going to throw away the fines from the 33's by letting them in! amongst the people who were on the course that attended to keep their licence clean were.

a 74 year old ex JP from Devon who had been visiting his daughter in Bristol, he had to drive over 100 miles each way, much of it on a motorway, to attend the 4 hour course.

a Dr from Bristol who had to take a day off her work with disabled children (she worked at the Bristol childrens hospital)

a social worker whose citroen car probably would not do much more than the 31mph she was clocked at.

The rest were generally either retired or profesional people.

I do have a great deal of contempt for these people, but its motivational, not unhealthy.

chris73

Love the houlier than thou replies which appear on these types of threads from time to time :rolleyes: . You've opened my eyes today because I didn't realise that saints had internet access

I don't condone speeding, certainly not excessive and deliberate speeding / racing in built up areas however I don't believe in concentrating money, resources and police time ENTIRELY focused on one particular crime - ie motoring. All crime should be treated equally.

On the speed kills point, yes it can and does, but often it is purely down to an oversight of 2 or 3 mph above the limit in zero tolerance areas or small margins on Motorways on clear days and certainly not as malicious or intended as many other crimes I could list. if you want to debate the subject then Ask the fire brigade how many "oversights" they see, such as when careless smokers fall asleep and start fires which then kill people and this could just as equally be avoided as speeding can but how many smokers are prosecuted for blatantly endangering the lives of others? - how many drunks have fallen asleep with the chip pan on and endangered their own familes and others in the same block of flats?, where survival is a factor how many prosecutions of those responsible resulted?.

We have cameras that can read number plates from yards away in darkness but the same technology can't be used to pick up a 6" 3" known offender committing crime on the streets or a kid being attacked outside his own school.

How many cyclists have had their bikes confiscated and crushed for riding without lights on a public road and who willingly and knowingly endanger themselves?, how many skateboard or cycle up and down public footpaths daily in town centres without penalty or risk of prosecution - all of these are also illegal under the same laws which apply to motorists and also are just as selfish and endanger others but unlike motorists you never read about them in the local press do you!. The same law which prosecutes the motorist should be just as effective at protecting the elderly using the footpaths.

Often in the summer months I see entire families riding two abreast along country roads without lights in the twilight, isn't taking your 5 or 6 year old on a main road at night without lights or even a helmet punishable under law? if not why not? lets see a few of these parental idiots in the courts too. Always remember that its not just the motorist who has accidents or who makes mistakes. And why the hell are helmets not compulsory under law whilst cycling? with £50 on the spot fines for those who think they are invincible?, surely they should be enforced like seat belts are in cars!. That is common sense, perhaps some of the saints here would be better employed pushing that cause hmm?

Pretty soon you wont have to worry about the motorists running down your kids, as knife crime seems to be the crime of choice at the moment.

Silent_Bob_3

nic82 wrote:

Even on the motorway I refuse to go above 70 miles an hour.

No doubt hogging the middle lane whilst the inside is clear?

BTW you can actually do 79mph on the motorway legally due to the 10% + 2mph rule. Speeding ever so slightly on the motorway is nothing when compared to speeding in a 30mph zone.

Slow driving is also just as dangerous as speeding.

As to the OP, dont admit it - challenge it on safety issues.