speed awareness course

capeverde

Jack_Regan wrote: »

What do you mean by technicality?

If any part of your vehicle passed the stop line on red you are banged to rights. That's why you start to stop on amber.;)

In case they have binned the photos after all this time, (its been months) I would also like to know the timing of the lights as at the time I remember thinking they were like usain bolt going from green to red and I think the amber would have needed to have been caught by some serious electronic device that is used to measure the speed of hummingbirds wings.

I appreciate Im clutching at straws, just got the hump over the changing of venues in the course.

Jack_Regan

capeverde wrote: »

In case they have binned the photos after all this time, (its been months) I would also like to know the timing of the lights as at the time I remember thinking they were like usain bolt going from green to red and I think the amber would have needed to have been caught by some serious electronic device that is used to measure the speed of hummingbirds wings.

I appreciate Im clutching at straws, just got the hump over the changing of venues in the course.

Well plead not guilty and take the chance in court.

Iceweasel

Jack_Regan wrote: »

What are you getting at?

The OP wasn't speeding so hasn't shot himself in the foot.

The offence is exceeding the speed limit. You cannot be convicted of speeding for driving at an inappropriate speed which is less than the limit.

What on earth are you talking about??

The OP hasn't told us what the alleged offence is - but I was thinking it was crossing the stop line / failing to stop at a red light.

He may not have been 'caught' speeding, but he was travelling too fast to stop when the lights changed to red.

Anyway this is an offence where there is no half measures - he either stopped or he didn't. You can't be a 'little bit' pregnant or 'not fully' dead for example, either.

As soon as he says he didn't stop he has admitted his guilt. The mitigating circumstances he insists on are irrelevant. He didn't stop and he admits it.

End of - unless he is accused of exceeding the 30mph limit which is a whole different ball game, and not what i was talking about at all.

Jack_Regan

Iceweasel wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about??

The OP hasn't told us what the alleged offence is - but I was thinking it was crossing the stop line / failing to stop at a red light.

He may not have been 'caught' speeding, but he was travelling too fast to stop when the lights changed to red.

Anyway this is an offence where there is no half measures - he either stopped or he didn't. You can't be a 'little bit' pregnant or 'not fully' dead for example, either.

As soon as he says he didn't stop he has admitted his guilt. The mitigating circumstances he insists on are irrelevant. He didn't stop and he admits it.

End of - unless he is accused of exceeding the 30mph limit which is a whole different ball game, and not what i was talking about at all.

What am I talking about?

You are the one who claimed he was speeding.

capeverde

look I wasnt speeding, it was the red light which I mentioned in my op. If the timings of the lights make stopping at the given limit difficult surely its down to them to change the speed limits / time sequence.

Anyway, to reiterate, I wont be going to court, as this would cost more than going to bloody coventry on the course. I was just hoping they may have destroyed the evidence by now.

Iceweasel

Jack_Regan wrote: »

What am I talking about?

You are the one who claimed he was speeding.

OK then - I'll try again.

Yes I suggested he was 'speeding' but I was NOT meaning he was exceeding the speed limit - only that he was travelling too fast to stop when the lights changed.

So in my way of thinking he was exceeding a safe speed as he chose not to stop.

All the talk about heavy loads and so on, means he should have been travelling slower.

But the offence is not stopping - or is it?

Nothing to do with exceeding the speed limit.

But a lot to do with an inappropriate speed, for the weight of his vehicle and trailer.

If he pleads 'Not guilty' the court will find him guilty very quickly as he admits the offence. Saying it was unsafe to stop so quickly as he had a heavy trailer or some such thing is plain crazy.

What if a kiddy chasing a ball ran out in front of him - would it make any difference if he had a heavy trailer?

He should have been able to stop. Kids are an unexpected hazard - but traffic lights we should anticipate changing and drive appropriately.

Lum

The speed limit and light timings will be based on an average car. They are also pretty standard with most lights in this country having a 3 second amber phase.

You were driving a fully laden van and, unfortunately, are responsible for keeping to a safe speed for your vehicle that will allow you to stop in good time.

You are correct to say that you were not speeding, i.e. you were not travelling above the stated speed limit. But if you say in court what you've said here, they could easily find that you were travelling too fast for the circumstances and nail you for that.

I'm sorry if this post sounds like I'm having a go at you, that is not my intent, but this is the kind of thing you could face if you stand up in a court and say "I was driving so fast that I couldn't stop my van in time"

Personally I would find some way to do the course. If it's really going to cost you £200 in fuel to get to Coventry, and you really can't face doing part of the journey on public transport, maybe you could rent a Vauxhall Corsa for the trip?

sarahg1969

When did the offence occur?

Jack_Regan

Iceweasel wrote: »

OK then - I'll try again.

Yes I suggested he was 'speeding' but I was NOT meaning he was exceeding the speed limit - only that he was travelling too fast to stop when the lights changed.

So in my way of thinking he was exceeding a safe speed as he chose not to stop.

All the talk about heavy loads and so on, means he should have been travelling slower.

But the offence is not stopping - or is it?

Nothing to do with exceeding the speed limit.

But a lot to do with an inappropriate speed, for the weight of his vehicle and trailer.

If he pleads 'Not guilty' the court will find him guilty very quickly as he admits the offence. Saying it was unsafe to stop so quickly as he had a heavy trailer or some such thing is plain crazy.

What if a kiddy chasing a ball ran out in front of him - would it make any difference if he had a heavy trailer?

He should have been able to stop. Kids are an unexpected hazard - but traffic lights we should anticipate changing and drive appropriately.

So what if a kid had of run out?

He may have hit them and killed them. But if there was no evidence of dangerous or careless driving what would happen?

Nothing.

So stick to the facts, an amber light only goes one colour next so that's reasonably expected. A child out of thin air isn't.

Iceweasel

Jack_Regan wrote: »

So what if a kid had of run out?

He may have hit them and killed them. But if there was no evidence of dangerous or careless driving what would happen?

Nothing.

So stick to the facts, an amber light only goes one colour next so that's reasonably expected. A child out of thin air isn't.

I expected you to miss the point again - and you did.

But you're right - if we stick to the facts - he's guilty.

It doesn't really matter why.

Fair enough.