A tip incase anyone gets caught 'speeding'

Wig

La_Tristesse_Durera wrote:

I found this on another website, I know we all from time to time do 51mph in a 50mph zone... but should anyone feel hard done by FOR GETTING CAUGHT 'speeding' UNDER THE LIMIT (this has happened) then perhaps this could be helpful;

1, Ask for the calibration certificate for the last three years of the camera that caught you.

2, If the camera was placed on a pavement or the van was parked on a pavement ask for a copy of the Pavement closure order notice from the local council.

3, If you were captured by a mobile camera find out the exact length the speed camera safety warning notice was displayed away from the camera. (there is a legal set distance to warn you depending on what type of camera it was , Fixed, radar, Mobile, etc,etc)

4, Do not pay the fine right away, Leave it until the last 4 days of your notice, (often 30 days) and then ask for the calibration certificate.

I'll pick up No.3 there is a "guideline" of distance from signs, but it has no bearing on the validity of the speeding fine. So you won't mind if I take 1 & 2 with a pinch of salt

IMO IANAL

iceman_2

Wig wrote:

People have been done for undue when under the speed limit.

Maybe, but not by speed cameras

vansboy

Does anyone else find the radio advert, for speeding, disturbing?

The one where the young girl says 'if you hit me at 40, I'll die - but hit me at 30 (background sound child crying) I'll live'.

Possibly the advertising agency were either badly briefed, by which ever government department selected them, or totally stupid - it'd be better if the poor girl wasn't hit at ANY speed!!

VB

Wig

vansboy wrote:

Does anyone else find the radio advert, for speeding, disturbing?

The one where the young girl says 'if you hit me at 40, I'll die - but hit me at 30 (background sound child crying) I'll live'.

Possibly the advertising agency were either badly briefed, by which ever government department selected them, or totally stupid - it'd be better if the poor girl wasn't hit at ANY speed!!

VB

When I heard it I said "ok I'll hit you at 30 then" :rotfl:

michaels

Wig wrote:

Errr, A bit of Déjà Vu going on 'ere methinks, I've seen this exact post before and replied to it but the date 16 Aug 2006 is certainly not right!

Anyway, I don't know if it was "michaels" who posted this before or not but I'll give the same reply I gave all those months ago......

If you do 30 outside school gates at 3pm in the rain, you are liable to get a ticket for careless driving or driving with undue care..... The reason is that you have to drive safely for the conditions. The speed limit is a maximum but it does not mean that you *have* to drive at the limit. People have been done for undue when under the speed limit.

Not sure if I have written something similar before - certainly sounds like something I would say ;-)

I hope with your reply that you are agreeing with me that at all times the driver should choose a speed appropriate for the conditions rather than just pedantically following the posted maximum limit. Also if no accident occurs then there is unlikely to be a charge of driving without due care and attention wheras a speed camera can not make a judgement as to whether the speed was appropriate. Given that a single maximum speed limit is posted I would suspect (hope) that there will be a tendancy to err on the side of caution when setting the limit which by implication means that there will be occasions where a higher speed is not unsafe.

Need_More_Money_2

It is highly unlikely that it is possible for the speed cameras accurately enough to determine you are speeding by 1mph. So I think you would have an excellent cause for arguement if you did get a ticket for such a small amount over the limit. As mentioned by others, the usual is 10% + 2mph over, but that doesn't mean you can travel at 79mph on a motorway and be ok, because the uncertainty in the measurement might mean they get a reading higher then 79mph.
Surely it would be much more dangerous to keep watching your speedo (rather than the road) to make sure you never go 1 or 2 mph over the limit. We need to apply common sense, but it would seem that common sense is frequently illegal too.

Murphy_The_Cat

Need_More_Money wrote:

It is highly unlikely that it is possible for the speed cameras accurately enough to determine you are speeding by 1mph. So I think you would have an excellent cause for arguement if you did get a ticket for such a small amount over the limit. As mentioned by others, the usual is 10% + 2mph over, but that doesn't mean you can travel at 79mph on a motorway and be ok, because the uncertainty in the measurement might mean they get a reading higher then 79mph.

As i have mentioned previously, an employee of mine got a ticket for driving at 77 mph on the M6 in Cumbria, and before anyone asks if he gave Dibble any "attitude" it was a Scamera in a double glazing van that did the deed.:mad:

MTC

Need_More_Money_2

Murphy_The_Cat wrote:

As i have mentioned previously, an employee of mine got a ticket for driving at 77 mph on the M6 in Cumbria, and before anyone asks if he gave Dibble any "attitude" it was a Scamera in a double glazing van that did the deed.:mad:

MTC

I'd definitely want to see some evidence of the accuracy and precision of the measuring equipment if I got a ticket like that.

Murphy_The_Cat

me as well.

Before that ticket came to the office, I was a firm believer in the "you'e safe up to 80 mph" school of thinking - but not any more apparently.

Saying that, my (ex) employee paid up.

MTC

milkydrink

Dan29 wrote: »

I think the normal rule is 10% + 2mph? So on a motorway they won't normally stop anyone doing under 79mph. I believe 30mph or more over the limit is normally the point where fixed penalties no longer apply and a trip to court would be required.

I have a notice of intended proscution for doing 36 mph in a 30 (a desserted industrial estate on a Saturday afternoon:mad: ).

So I was allowed 30 + 10 % + 2 = 35mph, so I'm being done for 1 mph:mad: .