Speeding fines

give_them_FA

It is usually signed as an "average speed check". So if you are going a bit fast as you pass the first camera, slow down to a low speed before you reach the second one. It's more likely to cause an accident, but at least you won't get a ticket.

HO87

give_them_FA wrote: »

That, unfortunately, is Britain all over. Commit a technical infringement and the stealth tax boys clobber you even though you have done nothing dangerous or caused no actual problem.

I well remember once being stopped peacefully at a traffic light when some stupid driver who was looking at her passenger instead of where she was going smashed into me, knocking me into the car in front, and that into the car in front again.

A police car was coming in the opposite direction; all the officers did was stop briefly, say "no-body hurt?" (never even got out of their car) then just drove off.

So, cause an accident = no fine and no points on the licence.
Not cause an accident = fine and points.

No wonder people wonder at how traffic law is administered.

With respect, the law is quite clear on this in that provided that all of those involved stop at the scene; there are no injuries and the various parties have exchanged the required details there is no requirement that the matter be reported to the police. The officers ensured that the law had been/was being complied with what else would you have had them do?

The law was designed in the way it is to reduce the necessity for the police to be involved. Were it not, the investigation of minor collisions would fill many officers' days and achieve little other than p*ssing off even more motorists who would be endlessly invited into stations for interview and wait months for the CPS to make decisions whether to prosecute or not.

However, if, as it would seem, you had a latent allegation against the driver who drove into your vehicle then why did you not report the accident then and there? You didn't even need to go to a police station as there were officers standing in front of you?

DUTR

k3lvc wrote: »

J25 anti-clockwise has a permanent and very well signed 50mph limit - whilst the OP is welcome to challenge the legality, signing etc I'd expect them to be laughed out of court.

IMHO the signs and the fact that everyone else tends to be doing 50 couldn't be much clearer

http://g.co/maps/cmjy9

And at J25 A560 exit there is a SPECS camera plain as day :cool:

give_them_FA

HO87 wrote: »

With respect, the law is quite clear on this in that provided that all of those involved stop at the scene; there are no injuries and the various parties have exchanged the required details there is no requirement that the matter be reported to the police. The officers ensured that the law had been/was being complied with what else would you have had them do?

The law was designed in the way it is to reduce the necessity for the police to be involved. Were it not, the investigation of minor collisions would fill many officers' days and achieve little other than p*ssing off even more motorists who would be endlessly invited into stations for interview and wait months for the CPS to make decisions whether to prosecute or not.

However, if, as it would seem, you had a latent allegation against the driver who drove into your vehicle then why did you not report the accident then and there? You didn't even need to go to a police station as there were officers standing in front of you?

Less a criticism of the individual officers, more a reflection of the priorities of traffic law enforcement. I did not get a chance to say anything to the officers as as soon as I shook my head to their question (yes I know I should have claimed whiplash, lol) they immediately drove off.

However, it must have been clear that where her car was embedded in the back of mine they must have been looking at a potential case of due care and attention at least? Why does it need a formal complaint? There is no formal complaint from anyone when it is a matter of a camera, they act on their own initiative..... I'm not even that miffed they didn't here, her insurance paid up.... but it is just the inconsistency annoys me.

Stephen_Leak

I think I'll still keep my maximum speed below the limit at all times. This ensures that my average should be below the limit.

These just remind me of probably the worst manager I've ever had. Instead of measuring your performance against a fixed target, he managed to "con" the rest of the team into measuring it against the team's monthly average. They just couldn't see that this meant that not only did you never know what the target was going to be, but also that he always had people to bully. They did, eventually.

give_them_FA

If I see a specs camera, I try and tailgate a large lorry so it cannot read my number plate....

OK, I don't, but I see people who do....

DUTR

give_them_FA wrote: »

If I see a specs camera, I try and tailgate a large lorry so it cannot read my number plate....

OK, I don't, but I see people who do....

They are probably tailgaiting to use the slipstream to save fuel.

HO87

DUTR wrote: »

They are probably tailgaiting to use the slipstream to save fuel.

Just as well there are under-run bars then. Shame there weren't in some cases.

27col

interstellaflyer wrote: »

I can't remember the figures but less than a certain amount over, I would imagine 58 in a 50 would qualify. I did a driver aware course last year and found it very interesting, it was more about improving your driving and I learnt an awfull lot, which I've put into practice ever since. If you get the option, take it.

I also did one recently and agree with flyer. Mine was for 35 in a 30 limit. There appears to be no shortage of takers in Hampshire, the lecturer told me that he runs 2 courses a day 5 days a week. They are offering these course to the general public and to employers for £50. They are doing an introductory offer of £ 30 I believe. Only the most arrogant of drivers would get nothing out of taking a course.