Speeding Fine?

Hereward

GreyPilgrim wrote:

Come on mate, thats bullsiht. It's a completely voluntary fine. THEY CAN ONLY FINE YOU IF YOU BREAK THE LAW. Which part of that do you not understand?

Each road has a designated speed limit. If you stay within it, you will not be fined. If you go over it you will be fined. So the police authorities are to be blamed if you go over the speed limit? How does that work?

This isn't quite true, you must drive at a reasonable speed where the conditions allow. A reasonable speed is considered to be not less than 10mph less that the published limit for the road. If your vehicle cannot reach this speed then you must pull over at the earlist opportunity and let the traffic behind you passed. Failure to do this can result in a fine for impeading the flow of traffic (AKA not making good progress).

GreyPilgrim

southernscouser wrote:

Hey steady on! Dikchead is a bit harsh! :rotfl:

Hahah, I speak for myself and no one else.

But seriously, the argument about speeding fines being unfair because you've been caught by a camera is one that really perplexes me - I think I must be missing a fundamental point. I know it's a real kick in the goolies to get a £60 fine, but I just want to know at which exact point in the argument FOR cameras do they disagree?

1) You are a on a road

2) That road has a designated speed limit for whatever reason - residential zone, dangerous bend, motorway, country road. Whatever. It has a designated speed limit.

3) That speed limit will be displayed on a sign

4) You must be able to read and understand that sign from a viable distance. if you can't, you shouldn't be driving

5) That speed designation is a law. Being old enough to drive a car, you should also be old enough to recognise what a law is, and to know what the implications / consequences of breaking that law are

6) Your car should be fitted with a functional speedometer.

7) You should be able to read and understand that speedometer (see point 4)

8) You should be able to see a correlation between all of the above seven points, namely that if you go faster than the limit for the road you are on, you are doing so in the full knowledge that you are breaking the law and therefore fully accept that you are opening yourself up to be fined

I KNOW this sounds patronising but it's really not meant to be...I'm just trying to see it from the other point if view and to understand which bit you have a problem with.

Is it the fact that you think the speed limits are too low? Is it the fact you were actually caught? Which bit?

If you stole something from a shop and got clocked by a CCTV camera, would you rant and rave about it? Would you complain because the camera was not clearly displayed

GreyPilgrim

Hereward wrote:

This isn't quite true, you must drive at a reasonable speed where the conditions allow. A reasonable speed is considered to be not less than 10mph less that the published limit for the road. If your vehicle cannot reach this speed then you must pull over at the earlist opportunity and let the traffic behind you passed. Failure to do this can result in a fine for impeading the flow of traffic (AKA not making good progress).

I knew you could be done for going too slow, but never realised it was only 10 mph below...

My comments were really in relation to being snapped by a speed camera though.

Gemmzie

Very true, the OP is facing up to their mistake and in a sensible DFW-fashion planning for the charges.


All this dodging paying is ridiculous

I was driving the other day at 65 in one lane (forget which way round inside and outside go :rolleyes: but the non-overtaking one) - which allows drivers to overtake at 70 fairly easily.
And this butthole decides to drive up my butt then drops back and overtakes at some ridiculous speed and his passenger shouts out the window to me - "get off the road if you can't drive right"

southernscouser

Hereward wrote:

This isn't quite true, you must drive at a reasonable speed where the conditions allow. A reasonable speed is considered to be not less than 10mph less that the published limit for the road. If your vehicle cannot reach this speed then you must pull over at the earlist opportunity and let the traffic behind you passed. Failure to do this can result in a fine for impeading the flow of traffic (AKA not making good progress).

I have a few doubts about this but would be pleased to be proved wrong.

I don't believe you have to drive at at least 60mph on a motorway. You can be fined for driving dangerously to slow but 60mph?

What about HGV lorries and the such. Some of them aren't capable of doing 60mph on a motorway! Why don't they get fined?

pfpf

Gorgeous_George wrote:

This is a top site
[url]hxxp://www.pepipoo.com/[/url]
GG

i only scimmed over the site, but is it a site that gives advice to people who have broken the law by speeding? :eek:

wow thats great (not)


yea i read the disclaimer but come on.

rog2

There are, although it is sometimes difficult to believe, different speed restrictions for lorries, dependent on their size and weight. Many are electronically restricted to 50 or 60 mph. (someone will confirm exact speed) and are limited to the inside lanes of the motorway - as, indeed we all are, unless overtaking.
It is so bl**dy annoying when you are stuck behind someone who is driving at 50 mph, in the middle lane, and it is tempting to 'put your foot down' once you have managed to get by - this is when you can easily enter the danger zone.
The UK Motorway Speed Limits have not been changed for decades, yet in most of Europe, cars can be driven at up to 130 km per hour (84 mph) although there is little tolerance at speeds above this - fines are summarily dished out, at the Motorway exits and, if you don't have the cash, you are often escorted to the nearest cash machine.
What tends to happen here is that people assume a 'tolerance' which legally does not exist - by driving at 80 + mph, then complain when they get a speeding fine! I certainly did - but still had to pay.
Perhaps our speed limit should be increased,to take into account the shorter braking distances and generally improved safety of modern cars, but then accompanied by zero tolerance!
That said, I still beleive that the policeman who was 'unofficially testing a new unmarked police car at speeds of 140+ mph' should receive the same punishment that any of us receive!
Sorry for rant - hope it hasn't deterred from the thread.

Toomuchdebt

I think the speed limits are too low on motorways here-I think if the conditions are right then up to 90mph is acceptable(have driven abroad where the limits are higher but there are less accidents) but also I think that speeding when the road is empty at 4am say at 40mph on a 30mph limit is totally different to speeding at 40mph on the same road in the middle of the day when there are loads of cars and people around.For the record I have a speeding fine for going at 58mph on a motorway where the limit was temporarily at 40mph.I was the ONLY car on the motorway at the time(2am) and was not at all happy.I actually didn't see the sign that said 40mph,but even if I had I don't think I would have slowed down as I was the only car on the road.

calleyw

Gorgeous_George wrote:

I sent a cheque last time (5 years ago and still bitter!) and 'accidentally' forgot to sign it. In total, I had 4 letters before paying. £15 a letter seemed to give me a moral victory

Good luck. It's robbery.



GG

If the cheque had been paid in it would have been cleared. As I believe that banks don't have the time to check piddling little cheques and have a limit that they check under that they don't bother.

If it had been me I would just paid the cheque in rather than waste my time sending letter to tell you to sign it.

How is it robbery you know the laws of the land does not matter if you agree with them or not. If you speed you know that you can be caught and then fined and points on your licence.

Yours


Calley

arnie&caseysma!

Hereward wrote:

A reasonable speed is considered to be not less than 10mph less that the published limit for the road. If your vehicle cannot reach this speed then you must pull over at the earlist opportunity and let the traffic behind you passed. Failure to do this can result in a fine for impeading the flow of traffic (AKA not making good progress).

I think that you will find that the speed limit imposed on a section road is defined as the maximum speed at which you are allowed to travel at by law but not the safest speed. Speed should be altered as conditions dictate whether it be weather or the fact that kids are running about. Personally I wouldnt dream of doing 30mph through a housing estate where there are likely to be a number of children.

As for being fined for impeding the flow of traffic.........if a person was to drive so slowly that their standard of driving could be considered as falling below that of a careful and competent driver then they can be reported for a contravention of Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (careless driving)

So far I have not come across anything in road traffic law that describes it as being 10mph below the speed limit.

Every type of vehicle travelling the roads has a speed limit for the particular vehicle - eg cars....30mph; 60mph under the National Speed Limit; 70mph on dual carriageway and motorway - unless the Speed Regulatory signs tell you something different. Vans are 50mph under the NSL and 70 (I think on DC and M/way); HGVs are 40mph and 50 or 60 (i think on DC and M/Way). The actual speeds can be found in the highway code.