2 speeding fines in 45 mins!

cdburten

Hi all,
So today I got 2 identical letters in the post, 2 speeding fines from the 17th Jan, one at 14.18 another at 15.03 same road, same camera (mobile unit) doing 36 and 39 respectively in a 30 limit. I will say that the road changes to a 40 just yards after I was caught speeding, which is why I was speeding, because I was simply accelrating up to speed! But I know thats no defence from a legal perspective.
However, is the fact that these offences were both committed less than an hour apart a reasonable defense in favour of one being discarded? Im 21, have held my licence for nearly 3 years and its a clean licence until now. Also, what are the prospects of me being offered a speed awareness course for one of them?
Many Thanks!:)

Oblivion

cdburten wrote: »

Hi all,
So today I got 2 identical letters in the post, 2 speeding fines from the 17th Jan, one at 14.18 another at 15.03 same road, same camera (mobile unit) doing 36 and 39 respectively in a 30 limit. I will say that the road changes to a 40 just yards after I was caught speeding, which is why I was speeding, because I was simply accelrating up to speed! But I know thats no defence from a legal perspective.
However, is the fact that these offences were both committed less than an hour apart a reasonable defense in favour of one being discarded? Im 21, have held my licence for nearly 3 years and its a clean licence until now. Also, what are the prospects of me being offered a speed awareness course for one of them?
Many Thanks!:)

Quite the opposite I would have thought ... you've simply proved that you exceed the speed limit 'on a regular basis' in their eyes.


My wife got done by a speed camera once doing only 32 in a 30 limit. No amount of pleading could get her off paying a fine and points on her licence, and that also had to be reported to her insurance company and surprise surprise ... a much higher premium at renewal.


These guys don't take prisoners.

Indie_Kid

I don't see how you have a defense at all.

GrumpyGit_3

cdburten wrote: »

I will say that the road changes to a 40 just yards after I was caught speeding, which is why I was speeding, because I was simply accelrating up to speed! But I know thats no defence from a legal perspective.

I would have been a better idea to accelerate up to speed after entering the 40 zone and not before.

cdburten wrote: »

However, is the fact that these offences were both committed less than an hour apart a reasonable defense in favour of one being discarded?

Try that one out and you might find yourself facing an eye test, or an Alzheimers test, as you either didn't see the van first time round or you saw it and instantly forgot you'd seen it .

amistupid

Our Police Comissioner and his deputy have both recently been done for speeding.

We all know it's wrong to speed but I always felt the law was a bit unjust towards the motorist. I've seen people cautioned two or three times for committing quite serious criminal offences yet you invariably get prosecuted for speeding.

I believe there should be a way for motorists who only margainly break the speed limit, to get some form of official caution, for a first offence.

cdburten

GrumpyGit wrote: »

I would have been a better idea to accelerate up to speed after entering the 40 zone and not before.



Try that one out and you might find yourself facing an eye test, or an Alzheimers test, as you either didn't see the van first time round or you saw it and instantly forgot you'd seen it .

Yes it would, but generally people dont do that, when you see a 40 sign a few yards ahead on the left you start accelerating....clearly this is about trickery more than actually preventing accidents. And the van was completely hidden, I did see it on the way back the 2nd time and braked but it must have just caught me

Kingsd316

Oblivion wrote: »

My wife got done by a speed camera once doing only 32 in a 30 limit. No amount of pleading could get her off paying a fine and points on her licence, and that also had to be reported to her insurance company and surprise surprise ... a much higher premium at renewal.

I always thought the guideline was 10% plus 2 mph, learn something new everyday

cdburten

Oblivion wrote: »

My wife got done by a speed camera once doing only 32 in a 30 limit. No amount of pleading could get her off paying a fine and points on her licence, and that also had to be reported to her insurance company and surprise surprise ... a much higher premium at renewal.
QUOTE]

Really? thats harsh. I always thought it was 10% over + 2 points, that seems to be the general leeway ie. at least 35 before you get prosecuted.

Oblivion

cdburten wrote: »

Oblivion wrote: »

My wife got done by a speed camera once doing only 32 in a 30 limit. No amount of pleading could get her off paying a fine and points on her licence, and that also had to be reported to her insurance company and surprise surprise ... a much higher premium at renewal.
QUOTE]

Really? thats harsh. I always thought it was 10% over + 2 points, that seems to be the general leeway ie. at least 35 before you get prosecuted.

The guidelines may have changed, I don't know ... this was about ten years ago and they told us we had no grounds to appeal.

cdburten

amistupid wrote: »

Our Police Comissioner and his deputy have both recently been done for speeding.

We all know it's wrong to speed but I always felt the law was a bit unjust towards the motorist. I've seen people cautioned two or three times for committing quite serious criminal offences yet you invariably prosecuted for speeding.

I believe there should be a way for motorists who only margainly break the speed limit, to get some form of official caution, for a first offence.

Exactly. Shoplifters get cautioned on a first offence, drug possession, breach of the peace, being abusive are all generally let off with a caution first time round. But speeding, its just a money making scam, like I said in reply to another person on here, by positioning themselves just before the 40 sign, it is clearly an act of trickery as opposed to genuinely trying to prevent accidents.

Masomnia

Kingsd316 wrote: »

I always thought the guideline was 10% plus 2 mph, learn something new everyday

It's certainly not a hard and fast rule, otherwise the limit may as well be 35 rather than 30.

I think it's to do with the accuracy of the camera, you might have a defence if the camera is only accurate to within that margin and it is thus not proven beyond doubt that you were speeding.

If you were done doing 32, your speedo was probably reading 35 (as they over-read by a bit) so you probably don't have much of a defence there either.

OP, I think it is likely they'd see it as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one. 'Honestly officer, I speed all the time, I should only be done once' is much of a defence.

I think it's harsh too, especially in the run up to a 40 zone, but it is the law.