Notice of Intended Prosecution

Rodney_Trotter

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Well it sounds like you are as observant as the OP then.

What are you getting at?

Jamie_Carter

Rodney_Trotter wrote: »

What are you getting at?

Go back through the conversation, and work it out.

Rodney_Trotter

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Go back through the conversation, and work it out.

If you have a point to make then go ahead, I can't be bothered to second guess you.

whatmichaelsays

AdrianC wrote: »

He has been accused of exceeding the speed limit. In the very first post, he admitted that he was on that particular road at that particular time, and that his awareness of the road conditions was insufficient for him to even notice the large and brightly illuminated speed limit signs, and that he does not know what speed he was doing.

What weight do you think that "evidence" would carry to a magistrate if the case went to court?

Pretty much this. The OP put their neck in a noose with the opening post.

The way to assess it is this - did the OP suggest any mitigating evidence that suggested that they may be successful?
A crying baby? No excuse and one the magistrates will be bored of.
Not aware of signs? Not really showing the OP in a good light
Thinking the limits didn't apply? Why wouldn't they have applied?

A pretty clear case really.

MikeR71

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

RT hasn't given you constructive advice.


There are too many sites where people try to seek advice on how to get out of paying fines for offences that they have committed. Rather than accepting the penalty, and learning from it. After all the penalties are supposed to be there as a deterrent, not as something to try and wriggle out of, and just ignore the law.

Oh come on, are you that naive?
The fines are there to make money. Police forces make millions a year from speeding fines. Don't tell me it has nothing to do with money.

MikeR71

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

Pretty much this. The OP put their neck in a noose with the opening post.

Well, to be fair, I didn't know I will be facing trial, judge and jury here so can you please take the noose off my neck?

Jamie_Carter

MikeR71 wrote: »

Oh come on, are you that naive?
The fines are there to make money. Police forces make millions a year from speeding fines. Don't tell me it has nothing to do with money.

The primary reason for fines is a deterrent from breaking the law. And most of the laws are in place for safety reasons.


It's people who break the law who then complain that the fines are just there to raise revenue. If you don't break the law then it won't cost you anything, and the deterrent will have worked.

Jamie_Carter

MikeR71 wrote: »

Well, to be fair, I didn't know I will be facing trial, judge and jury here so can you please take the noose off my neck?

In your fist post you were asking for advice on how to get out of paying the fine. The best way to avoid the speeding fine is to be observant, and stick to speed limits. Quite simple really, so accept the penalty, and learn from it.

Lum

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

The primary reason for fines is a deterrent from breaking the law. And most of the laws are in place for safety reasons.

Hahahaha, how's that kool-aid working out for you?

Most of the recent (last 10 years or so) crop of speed limit reductions are about "being seen to be doing something", not actually doing something, since actually doing something is difficult and expensive.

Roadworks speed limits are a reasonable example to use. The reason they're basically always full time, and cover the entire stretch to be worked on, rather than moved around to cover only the stretch currently being worked upon is because of the masses of paperwork (and thus, cost) involved in getting a single temporary speed limit in place. If you wanted to vary it, have it only operational at certain times, or move it about as the roadworks move, the amount of paperwork increases exponentially as you'll have to apply for a whole bunch of separate temporary limits as there's no framework in place to do it sensibly.

Anyone who remembers the M6 roadworks from 5 years back will have seen the effects of this. 4 or 5 miles of 50 limit of which only a 1/2 mile chunk was being worked on at any given time. The whole section was full of SPECS cameras, of course, but most of it didn't even have so much as a traffic cone.

Don't get me started on the effect that 4 1/2 miles of 50 limit with no roadworks will have on driver's attentiveness.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

Hahahaha, how's that kool-aid working out for you?

Most of the recent (last 10 years or so) crop of speed limit reductions are about "being seen to be doing something", not actually doing something, since actually doing something is difficult and expensive.

Roadworks speed limits are a reasonable example to use. The reason they're basically always full time, and cover the entire stretch to be worked on, rather than moved around to cover only the stretch currently being worked upon is because of the masses of paperwork (and thus, cost) involved in getting a single temporary speed limit in place. If you wanted to vary it, have it only operational at certain times, or move it about as the roadworks move, the amount of paperwork increases exponentially as you'll have to apply for a whole bunch of separate temporary limits as there's no framework in place to do it sensibly.

Anyone who remembers the M6 roadworks from 5 years back will have seen the effects of this. 4 or 5 miles of 50 limit of which only a 1/2 mile chunk was being worked on at any given time. The whole section was full of SPECS cameras, of course, but most of it didn't even have so much as a traffic cone.

Don't get me started on the effect that 4 1/2 miles of 50 limit with no roadworks will have on driver's attentiveness.

The primary reason for the fines is as a deterrent. If you don't break the law then they won't make any money from you. It's as simple as that.


People who break the law, and then complain about the fine annoy me. If you don't like being fined, then it should put you off breaking the law again, and has served it's purpose.


If people all drove according to the RTA, then there would be very little need to spend millions of pounds on traffic police. And millions of £'s that RTC's cost would be saved.


We all get annoyed by road works that seem to go on for miles, when there is only a small section being worked on. However you or I don't know if all the work has been completed, and signed off, on the stretch of road that appears to be coned off for no reason.


The DOT hate anything that causes congestion on major trunk roads, and they put traffic police and HATO's under huge pressure to reopen roads as soon as possible. In fact I know of quite a few occasions where traffic officers have had stand up rows with fire officers, because the fire officer wanted to keep lanes shut (to protect crews), but the police wanted to open them as soon as possible. So it is extremely unlikely that the DOT would allow long stretches of road works, and the associated congestion, just to raise revenue.