Speed Cameras ... ::sigh::

Lum

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

So if you stopped, didn't look and crossed an empty junction what would the offence be?

Something along the lines of driving without due care and attention

If you didn't stop you could get a ticket for failing to do so.

Yes, and if you also didn't look and caused an accident, they could get you on due care and attention as well, however due care an attention is harder to prove so they might just prosecute you for the failure to stop.

This still doesn't address my point though, which is WHY they want you to stop? They don't just put the signs there to annoy you.

Strider590

^^ I think they'd either not prosecute OR prosecute for speeding in a temporary 0 mph zone

Gandalfthesecond

Lum wrote: »

Something along the lines of driving without due care and attention



Yes, and if you also didn't look and caused an accident, they could get you on due care and attention as well, however due care an attention is harder to prove so they might just prosecute you for the failure to stop.

This still doesn't address my point though, which is WHY they want you to stop? They don't just put the signs there to annoy you.

Which is why I said an empty junction, eliminating the possibility of a collision. No matter what you say in law a stop sign means stop.

If you fail to stop and have a collision at the very least you'd face prosecution for careless. In that situation it would be quite easy to prove.

cyclonebri1

Flyboy152 wrote: »

You have no evidence of that being the case. I can't imagine that any reasonable person would assume that, because they weren't exceeding the speed limit, it would be acceptable to otherwise drive dangerously. I really don't believe that drivers think, "ooh, I am not speeding, therefore I can use my mobile telephone without endangering anyone." I am sure they use other justifications for that.

Then you stick to your opinion and I'll stick to mine, end of

Gandalfthesecond

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

And there is no innapropriate speed, (provided you are below the speed limit),

In what sense?

You can be involved in a collision whilst under the speed limit, your speed therefore maybe inappropriate but not excessive.

cyclonebri1

Lum wrote: »

The point is that the purpose of a stop sign is to make sure that people actually look properly because visibility is a lot lower than average and someone who just sailed through the junction at 30 is pretty likely to have an accident.

.

:T:TAbsoulutely. The reason I have an issue with this is that the country B road I use every single day has just had it's 60 limit reduced to 50. And all because there are regular accidents at 2 junctions. You can't "role" out of these junctions at 5 mph let alone 30 due to square corners and high hedges, and yet they still only have give way signs.

Previously when the limit was 60, I wouldn't dream of passing said junctions above 45, but only this month I actually had a young driver lose control as she panic braked when she saw me 20yds from the junction and slewed straight accoss my path. Yes I did miss her, but only just.

Lum

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

Which is why I said an empty junction, eliminating the possibility of a collision. No matter what you say in law a stop sign means stop.

I have never claimed otherwise. I am just trying to get people to think about why they want you to stop.

Which of these is worse?

Person A slows to a crawl, and as they creep towards the stop sign does a through check of both directions and is able to conclude that nothing is coming for a reasonable distance and so lifts the clutch and carries on.

Person B comes to the line, stops, gives the briefest of glances in either direction and thus fails to notice that there is an approaching motorbike hidden behind their A pillar and pulls out in front of them.

If you fail to stop and have a collision at the very least you'd face prosecution for careless. In that situation it would be quite easy to prove.

If you fail to stop, but the busload of kittens coming the other way sees you and hauls on the anchors and avoids a collision it's a bit harder to prove. But if all else fails they can still get you on failure to stop.

jase1

Person A of course. He broke the law and needs to be punished.

I'm off to tell the family of the motorcyclist now. I'm sure they'll be thrilled.

Flyboy152

mchale wrote: »

Maybe, but if that ticket is challenged, then the police will lose, as your speedo is allowed a 10% discrepancy. I have yet to hear of anybody being prosecuted for speeding in a car for a 10% over the speed limit offense.

A car's speedometer is allowed to overread by ten per cent. If the speed indicated is thirty miles per hour and the calibration is overreading by the maximum, you will be travelling at only twenty-seven. However, your speed would have to be indicated at thirty-eight and a half miles per hour, for you to assume that you are within the APCO guide lines. But, in reality, you have no idea what your speedometer is calibrated at.

Now, translate that into what a police officer will mark your speed at. If you assume you are travelling at thirty-three mile per hour and your speedometer is overreading by the maximum, you will be read as driving at thirty miles per hour (or thereabouts). Now, if you believe your are driving at, or within the guide lines and your speedometer is underreading by ten per cent, you will be really travelling at thirty-eight miles per hour and will be prosecuted for doing so.

Using the excuse that your speedometer is not reading the correct speed is no defence.

If a police officer issues a ticket for speeding, there is no appeal that can be accepted based on the excuse that the driver was within the APCO guidelines. If, in the opinion of the issuing officer, the speed was inappropriate, the prosecution will stand.

forgotmyname

I think the prosecuted for 32,33, 35 in a 30 is AFTER they take into account a percentage for error.

One of the HGV drivers got a ticket for travelling at 50mph on an A road 60 limit for cars but only 40mph
limit for his vehicle. He knew he had been caught and knew he was doing 56mph, Tacho proved he was
doing 56mph.

Paperwork said he was doing 50mph.