Speeding Ticket

kingstreet

Notmyrealname wrote: »

All that happens is that for those with signs the local road safety partnership keep the fine money.

Not since 2007 when hypothecation ended. Fines go to the Treasury.

Some of the money from speed awareness courses on the other hand does find its way into the coffers of the SCP. That's why the upper threshold is now 10% + 9mph and many areas offer courses to higher limit offenders now. I guess it makes sense they'd also start enforcement from a lower base (rather than ACPO 10% + 2) to increase the number of SACs they can "sell."

Sgt_Pepper_2

brat wrote: »

That's man int' pub gossip. They may however enforce at 10% above ie 33mph in a 30, 44mph in a 40, with a speed awareness course being the preferred disposal option at that speed.

They may enforce at 31, since the offence is exceeding the speed limit.

Jamie_Carter

Why is it that when people break laws, first of all they complain that they got caught, and then they try and find a way out of it?

If you don't want to get done for speeding, then don't break the speed limit. After all, however frustrating they may sometimes be, they are there for safety reasons. If it was one of your children knocked down by a speeding motorist, then you wouldn't be complaining about people being nicked for speeding.

guardianangel

Did you get caught via a static speed camera or a camera van? I got caught doing 47 in a 40 on a dual carriageway by a camera van (didnt see the van until it was too late but i know it was my own fault i was speeding to a meeting i was late for). anyway as my record was clean I got given the choice to go on the speed awareness course and pay the fine with no points. The course was actually more interesting than I thought. They also tell you how much you have to be over to be 'caught' although speeding is speeding and like I said, I was in the wrong.

Maybe as you haven't been caught before you might get that option. The other thing I did was request a copy of the picture as it shows you the speed you were travelling at.

Aretnap

fred7777 wrote: »

I'm sure it used to be 3 points, £60 plus a "victim surcharge" or £75 no points and a speed awareness course.

Still is 3 points and £60 if dealt with by fixed penalty. There's no victim surcharge for fixed penalties - though there are mutterings about introducing it. There are also plans to increase the £60 part - which to be fair hasn't gone up in nearly 10 years.

Tobster86

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

If it was one of your children knocked down by a speeding motorist, then you wouldn't be complaining about people being nicked for speeding.

Does this mean you shouldn't be annoyed if they weren't speeding, and if a half asleep zombie hits your child within the speed limit it's acceptable?

If speed limits were set for safety and not for the purpose of fleecing the motorist, far fewer folk would be prosecuted. Enforcement focuses on generally high capacity, straight & open places that have an artificially low speed limit as the OP's post illustrates, otherwise people wouldn't deem their own actions to be safe and acceptable.

Don't get me wrong, I have little quarrel with 30 in a built up area. Much more becomes downright rude to be frank; but these areas actually see a lot less enforcement in favour of, for example, dual carriageway sections with a ridiculously low 40mph.

Jamie_Carter

Tobster86 wrote: »

Does this mean you shouldn't be annoyed if they weren't speeding, and if a half asleep zombie hits your child within the speed limit it's acceptable?

I don't see the point you are trying to make. That would also be illegal.

Tobster86 wrote: »

If speed limits were set for safety and not for the purpose of fleecing the motorist, far fewer folk would be prosecuted. Enforcement focuses on generally high capacity, straight & open places that have an artificially low speed limit as the OP's post illustrates, otherwise people wouldn't deem their own actions to be safe and acceptable.

Don't get me wrong, I have little quarrel with 30 in a built up area. Much more becomes downright rude to be frank; but these areas actually see a lot less enforcement in favour of, for example, dual carriageway sections with a ridiculously low 40mph.

You are coming out with all the usual excuses that speeding drivers use. Well maybe you should look at the accident statistics for those roads, rather than just having a paranoid view that they are out to get the motorists. And maybe you would would change your mind if you got to see the results of accidents at various speeds.

Most of us go over the speed limits occasionally, but if we know what the speed limit is for whatever road, and we break it, then we have no right to complain.

TKA25

Tobster86 wrote: »

Does this mean you shouldn't be annoyed if they weren't speeding, and if a half asleep zombie hits your child within the speed limit it's acceptable?

If speed limits were set for safety and not for the purpose of fleecing the motorist, far fewer folk would be prosecuted. Enforcement focuses on generally high capacity, straight & open places that have an artificially low speed limit as the OP's post illustrates, otherwise people wouldn't deem their own actions to be safe and acceptable.

Don't get me wrong, I have little quarrel with 30 in a built up area. Much more becomes downright rude to be frank; but these areas actually see a lot less enforcement in favour of, for example, dual carriageway sections with a ridiculously low 40mph.

Absolutely.

If speed cameras were really there as a 'visible deterrent' then why are most of them right after a bend, hiding behind overhanging branches and normally on the type of road you suggest.

Static speed cameras are absolutely pointless as motorists just slow down for the camera and then speed up afterwards. I've attended multiple accidents caused by motorists who have slammed their brakes on when seeing the camera, some of whom weren't even initially speeding but were too busy concentrating on the road instead of their speedo.

Mobile speed vans also annoy me. They do their best to hide away and enforce an arbitrary speed limit, whereas a police officer can use their discretion and take into factors such as the road surface, weather, visibility, time of day, vehicle condition etc.

In an ideal world, motorists would be educated enough to understand the meaning of appropriate speed. A good drivers eyes should be focused on road conditions and not on the speedo. If you can't stop in the distance seen to be clear, you're going too fast.

Speed doesn't kill; inappropriate speed kills.

Jamie_Carter

TKA25 wrote: »

Absolutely.

If speed cameras were really there as a 'visible deterrent' then why are most of them right after a bend, hiding behind overhanging branches and normally on the type of road you suggest.

Static speed cameras are absolutely pointless as motorists just slow down for the camera and then speed up afterwards. I've attended multiple accidents caused by motorists who have slammed their brakes on when seeing the camera, some of whom weren't even initially speeding but were too busy concentrating on the road instead of their speedo.

Mobile speed vans also annoy me. They do their best to hide away and enforce an arbitrary speed limit, whereas a police officer can use their discretion and take into factors such as the road surface, weather, visibility, time of day, vehicle condition etc.

In an ideal world, motorists would be educated enough to understand the meaning of appropriate speed. A good drivers eyes should be focused on road conditions and not on the speedo. If you can't stop in the distance seen to be clear, you're going too fast.

Speed doesn't kill; inappropriate speed kills.

You are ignoring the fact that most people rate their driving skills far higher than they actually are. So speed limits need to be set to allow for the worst drivers on the road, and not the best.

If you has attended as many RTC's as I have, then you would not be defending speeding.

What does it matter where the speed cameras are hidden? If you don't break the speed limit (which is clearly displayed), then you don't have to worry about cameras.

TKA25

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You are ignoring the fact that most people rate their driving skills far higher than they actually are. So speed limits need to be set to allow for the worst drivers on the road, and not the best.

If you has attended as many RTC's as I have, then you would not be defending speeding.

What does it matter where the speed cameras are hidden? If you don't break the speed limit (which is clearly displayed), then you don't have to worry about cameras.

I've attended far more RTCs than I care to remember and seen first hand the consequences of bad driving.

Very few of the fatalities I've been to involve somebody doing 45mph on a 40mph dual carriageway in good weather, in a modern vehicle, with a good open view of any forward hazards. Yet this is the type of motorist targeted by revenue raising speed cameras and vans.

I'm all for prosecuted those driving too fast for the presenting road conditions, whether or not that involves exceeding the statutory speed limit.

Prosecuting motorists for going a couple of MPH over the speed limit just disillusions otherwise law abiding citizens and paints the police in a bad light. Given that we police by consent in this country, I would much rather be keeping that large section of the public on the police's side.

I'm sure you agree that more police traffic patrols would reduce fatalities more than yet another metal speed camera, but obviously one is much cheaper than the other.