Notice of Intended Prosecution

Rodney_Trotter

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Sorry, but how are you qualified to decide what is or isn't dangerous??


The limit will be in force for various reasons, including: to protect the workforce, machinery on the road without a physical barrier around it, narrower lanes, no hard shoulder, less lanes to carry the same volume of traffic, etc, etc, etc...




The fact that the OP didn't notice the speed restrictions is an indication that they weren't paying attention to their surroundings.

How do you know there wasn't a physical barrier round the machinery? The op has said there was no workforce.

Jamie_Carter

Henzo wrote: »

It's not hard or difficult for these speed check cameras to catch drivers . I go through these speed check sections on the M1 every-day. And , I do see some drivers who genuinely seem to have a great deal of a problem and issue with this 50mph speed check thing . And that's Sticking to it, Amazing and ridiculous .....

It seems that some people don't have a clue what average means. They will slow down for the cameras, and then speed up again.

Jamie_Carter

Rodney_Trotter wrote: »

The stolen car is a bad example.

I'm sure the OP came here for advice and not to be patronised.

I's say that the OP came here to try and find a way to wriggle out of a penalty that they deserve.


They should learn from it, and change their driving style in the future.

Rodney_Trotter

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I's say that the OP came here to try and find a way to wriggle out of a penalty that they deserve.


They should learn from it, and change their driving style in the future.

How do you know he deserves it?

They may have made a mistake with the signage or paperwork and he asked for advice. After all it's a money saving site, he could have gone to mr Freeman's company.

Jamie_Carter

AdrianC wrote: »

As you've already pointed out several times, the offence he's charged with is not "dangerous driving", or even "careless driving". However appropriate that may actually be. He is only charged with exceeding the speed limit.

I was responding to RT's post.

Jamie_Carter

Rodney_Trotter wrote: »

How do you know there wasn't a physical barrier round the machinery? The op has said there was no workforce.

Because they don't tend to install new Armco barriers to divide roadworks from the running lanes. They use cones, or temporary water filled plastic barriers. Neither of which give the same protection as Armco or Briffen Rope barriers.

Rodney_Trotter

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I was responding to RT's post.

Well why wasn't he nip'd for careless or dangerous if the police considered it to be so?

Jamie_Carter

Rodney_Trotter wrote: »

How do you know he deserves it?

They may have made a mistake with the signage or paperwork and he asked for advice. After all it's a money saving site, he could have gone to mr Freeman's company.

Joined MSE this month, and already have 330 posts, in the style of a previous member who was PPR'd??????


Stop arguing for the sake of it.


The OP even admitted that they didn't know that the speed limit was in force. Which is probably why they didn't realise that they were breaking the speed limit.


Cameras and signs displaying speed limits in roadworks aren't exactly hidden are they?

Rodney_Trotter

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Because they don't tend to install new Armco barriers to divide roadworks from the running lanes. They use cones, or temporary water filled plastic barriers. Neither of which give the same protection as Armco or Briffen Rope barriers.

There are big concrete barriers on the m6 roadworks.

Jamie_Carter

Rodney_Trotter wrote: »

Well why wasn't he nip'd for careless or dangerous if the police considered it to be so?

Isn't that obvious???


They were caught in an average speed camera stretch, which is designed to catch people who break the speed limit.