Speeding 58mph in a 30mph but....

Paul_Varjak

Valiant123:


You had nine months to decide if you had broken the law and, not only do you acknowledge your guilt here, you plead guilty at court, you don’t want to wheedle out of it and you don’t want people to say: “You’ll get whatever you deserve”.


So, if it’s not sympathy you are looking for, I don’t know what it is!


You say that you obeyed the signs until they made no sense. What else can a 30mph sign mean, other than not to exceed 30mph?


Paragraph 262 of the Highway Code states: YOU MUST NOT EXCEED ANY TEMPORARY MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT.


Surely, you must realise that before a lane is physically closed, the lane closure signs and the speed limit signs have to be put in place!


You ask why the traffic lights are awful. It's all the deaths they have had some involvement in.


You also ask what a “Grade Separated Junction” is:

A63 Melton Grade Separated Junction

A63 Trunk Road (Melton grade separated junction)

Believe me, if you had a family member permanently and seriously injured in accident, you would not be making the excuses that speeding drivers do. My sister won a substantial court settlement – one of the largest at the time. If you like I can send you the newspaper cutting.


Paul


(Northern Regional Winner RAC Driver of the Year)

Paul_Varjak

Valiant23:

I note that you joined MSE on 19/09/2004.

Your very first post (on the day you joined) was about you being banned for driving!

Here is that post:

valiant23 wrote:

I was in a similar situation, I had 9pts due to speeding and was reported to the police for clipping a wing mirror. I was charged for 'driving without due care and attention'. At magistrates court I received 6pts for this offense(despite offering to recompense the victim for the damage). This meant I had a total of 15 pts and was banned. >:(
NOW THE GOOD NEWS
Immediately after my hearing I appealed to the Magistrates Court in the form of a letter to the clerk of the court(I think, it was a few years ago).
The letter basically said if I lose my licence I would be made unemployed and justice would not be served by this happening.
I remember I had to get testimonials and appear at crown court(nerve-wracking!), and I also remember that if I accrued any more pts or committed any more motoring offences this avenue would not be made available to me, so basically you only get one more chance.
One more thing. I'm a taxi-driver and do quite a few miles in unfamiliar surroundings. I have found all over the country that if you go through speed cameras at speeds of up to +10mph of the speed limit you don't get flashed, but be careful, I learned my lesson

P.s. this is the abridged version!

Looks like you didn't learn your lesson after all!

valiant23

Paul,

valiant23 wrote:

I mistakenly thought the temporary restrictions were only 'active' when the roadworks were.

Does anyone out there know whether I am right or not? I have already pleaded guilty to the offence, so its not a case of trying to 'wheedle out of it',

Of course, YOU could just ignore what YOU choose to see to suit your purpose, which seems to just throw abuse in my direction.

Paul_Varjak wrote:

Valiant123:


You had nine months to decide if you had broken the law and, not only do you acknowledge your guilt here, you plead guilty at court, you don’t want to wheedle out of it and you don’t want people to say: “You’ll get whatever you deserve”.


QUOTE]
9 mths. Now let me see.

1. 2-3 weeks after the speeding crime I received Notice of Intended Prosecution.
2. N.I.P. completed and returned promptly.
3. August....
4. September....
5. October....
6. November....
7. December....
8. January (24th) A summons arrives to answer 2 charges.

• Speeding
• Section 172-failing to provide details

Well, I suppose I was a little annoyed at the 2nd charge, as I received a 'received with thanks' letter, so I employed a solicitor to act on my behalf, and as the subject was on my mind, and the offence was 7mths old-long enough for it to have 'timed out' (oppurtunity to wheedle, perhaps)- I wondered if the Central Ticket Office was incompetent enough to lose an important document, were they incompetent enough to have wrongly accused me of speeding. I don't think that is too irrational, is it?

Does anyone remember EXACTLY what speed they were doing at xxxxhrs on xx date 6-7mths previously?

Paul_Varjak wrote:

Surely, you must realise that before a lane is physically closed, the lane closure signs and the speed limit signs have to be put in place!

QUOTE]

I also realise that the carriageway was only reduced to 1 lane at NIGHT, which would mean work was carried out at night, which would mean there is no reason as to why there should've been a 30mph limit at 1.30p.m.

Paul_Varjak wrote:

Believe me, if you had a family member permanently and seriously injured in accident, you would not be making the excuses that speeding drivers do. My sister won a substantial court settlement – one of the largest at the time. If you like I can send you the newspaper cutting.
QUOTE]

Whilst I repeat my sentiments about your sister, I am not responsible for the actions of others. I had no involvement in you sisters accident, but I will concede the valid point, if my family had suffered what yours have I probably would change my tune.

Paul, you say that I AM making excuses, when in fact I am taking the time to explain my reasoning.

Would you prefer me to say I was ONLY doing 58mph? Would you prefer me to say the Police are sneaky b*gg*rs who should concentrate on catching 'real' criminals? If I had taken that attitude I could understand the vitriolic tone of your posts.

Perhaps next time instead of asking for information I should just stay silent, and stay ignorant.:rolleyes:

andy88_2

valiant23 wrote:

If I am recorded by an LTi 20/20 device doing 58mph in a 50 zone I would almost certainly pleasd not guilty as I have absolutely NO faith in those devices.

valiant23 wrote:

have already pleaded guilty to the offence, so its not a case of trying to 'wheedle out of it', [...] , but as I said before, I truly believed I was on a national speed limit road.

Why do have NO faith in the device that has accurately recorded the speed you were doing?

You admitted it to us at the start and have now started denying it - the authorities are incompetent in your last post.

I have no idea what the device was in my case as no evidence whatsoever was produced in court, in three hearings. Neither Magistrates or County Court judge seemed to appreciate the fact.

rolpaula

jjames wrote:

You could always say you're a police officer, the "creme de la creme", and were testing the capabilities of the car. Seems to work according to the news....

this is what i would have posted too !!!!

MoneyMachine_2

I can onl sympathise with the OP.
As someon who drives 10's of thoudands of miles a year after 9pm at night (at the earliest) I know the frustration of these temporary restrictions. As I oonly passed my test 2 years ago, for the past 2 years I have been taking it easy (as I will incur double points for any violations) but am increasingly frustrated by the frequency of these patches of 'roadworks' where no work has taken place at all and the cones have been only on the had shoulder and temporary speed restrictions are everywhere.
I have slowed down in the majority of these cases (as I cant risk the doucle points) only to be flashed and aggresively overtaken by those behind me. I dont really blame them - as soon a my two years is up (2 months from now) I will stop slowing down for these pseudo 'hazards.'
I can only sympathise with those whose loved ones are injured in RTA's, I've suffered the loss of a close friend myself, however, I am a stern believer in the fact that it is not 'speed' that kills but bad driving practice.
This has been shown many many times in surveys of fatal and non-fatal RTA's along routes upon which speed cameras have been placed. ( and I live on one such road so have a vested interest.)

It is not speed we need to be protected from but those a55 hole drivers we all see make the same ridiculously aggresive manouevres time and time again at all speeds.

Cameras will never catch these people - but more traffic police will.

valiant23

andy88 wrote:

Why do have NO faith in the device that has accurately recorded the speed you were doing?

You admitted it to us at the start and have now started denying it - the authorities are incompetent in your last post.

I have no idea what the device was in my case as no evidence whatsoever was produced in court, in three hearings. Neither Magistrates or County Court judge seemed to appreciate the fact.

andy88

On the Peepipoo website it was a prominent 'story' on there about the Newbury by-pass, and how many drivers had been wrongly prosecuted for speeding, as in your instance. It gives quite a bit of information as regards a particular device the authorities use, and I think it was the LTi 20/20.

The reason I have little or no faith in these instruments is because the same story is repeated again and again all over England & Wales where these devices are (from what I read) unreliable.

As regards admitting it, I do (I think) admit I was speeding, BUT (here we go) it was 7mths from offence to summons (not my fault). I refer to my previous post-exact speed etc..

After so long I suppose I took it on trust- I must've been speeding if the Police say I was, after all I was at or near the scene of the crime at that time.

I think I would just advise anyone in future that if there is any doubt on your part, then it is not wrong to ask the authorities for some proof.

valiant23

MoneyMachine wrote:

I can onl sympathise with the OP.
As someon who drives 10's of thoudands of miles a year after 9pm at night (at the earliest) I know the frustration of these temporary restrictions. As I oonly passed my test 2 years ago, for the past 2 years I have been taking it easy (as I will incur double points for any violations) but am increasingly frustrated by the frequency of these patches of 'roadworks' where no work has taken place at all and the cones have been only on the had shoulder and temporary speed restrictions are everywhere.
I have slowed down in the majority of these cases (as I cant risk the doucle points) only to be flashed and aggresively overtaken by those behind me. I dont really blame them - as soon a my two years is up (2 months from now) I will stop slowing down for these pseudo 'hazards.'
I can only sympathise with those whose loved ones are injured in RTA's, I've suffered the loss of a close friend myself, however, I am a stern believer in the fact that it is not 'speed' that kills but bad driving practice.
This has been shown many many times in surveys of fatal and non-fatal RTA's along routes upon which speed cameras have been placed. ( and I live on one such road so have a vested interest.)

It is not speed we need to be protected from but those a55 hole drivers we all see make the same ridiculously aggresive manouevres time and time again at all speeds.

Cameras will never catch these people - but more traffic police will.

MoneyMachine, don't get suckered by those idiots. Take my story as an example of how NOT to drive, because as frustrating as it is when you go through 'phantom' roadworks it is nothing compared to the frustration you will have to endure when you tell your insurance company about your speeding fine, and they bump up the premiums accordingly.

andy88_2

valiant23 wrote:

... was a prominent 'story' on there about the Newbury by-pass, and how many drivers had been wrongly prosecuted for speeding, as in your instance. It gives quite a bit of information as regards a particular device the authorities use, and I think it was the LTi 20/20.
...
I think I would just advise anyone in future that if there is any doubt on your part, then it is not wrong to ask the authorities for some proof.

You don't make clear whether this is a fixed or handheld device. I was not on the Newbury bypass, but almost in Oxfordshire, doing 70-72 mph when limited to 60.

I wanted to see the man in court to explain why he had no reading, why he was so underconfident when he saw the size of the trailer, why he was hoping it was lighter than it looked and was, and why he asked the engine capacity of the GTI - 1905 I said, but this is a 1769 diesel

But he couldn't be brought to court; went sick. He's lying said a retired police sergeant friend, everybody knows that.

In a case where you admit guilt but not the degree of it, and where this may affect the outcome ie disqualification or not, the court is supposed to hear the evidence of both sides, called a Newton hearing. It didn't happen.