Speeding fine

mcpitman

pendragon_arther wrote: »

I'm a cyber saint and have never ever exceeded the speed limit. I drive at a consistent 29mph in a 30mph limit, 39mph in a 40mph zone and 49mph in a 50mph limit, 59mph in a 60mph limit and 69mph in a 70mph zone.

One green bottle hanging on the wall... two green bottles hanging on the wall...

My hero, all i'm saying is if you speed, take the punishment and don't be such a whining b1tch about it.

FlameCloud

patman99 wrote: »

If the camera is local to the op, they could always go out and measure the road markings to make sure that they comply with guidelines.
There was a case a while back where a chap got away with a speeding ticket as the lines on the road used to calculate the speed were wrongly-spaced.

Unlikely, given the lines are used for a manual visual back up of the speed rather than the calculation.

Coveredinbees!!!!

depends what sort of camera it was, there many not even be check lines.

Indout96

pendragon_arther wrote: »

I'm a cyber saint and have never ever exceeded the speed limit. I drive at a consistent 29mph in a 30mph limit, 39mph in a 40mph zone and 49mph in a 50mph limit, 59mph in a 60mph limit and 69mph in a 70mph zone

Bloody roadhog :mad:

pendragon_arther

Indout96 wrote: »

Bloody roadhog :mad:

And I'm towing a caravan too.:D

Nasqueron

AdrianC wrote: »

Fewer dead nuns, please...

The "fewer not less for countable values" is not actually a rule in English, it's just one pedants love to quote as it's become part of the armoury of the grammar obsessive.

Less/fewer goes back to the days of King Alfred in 888 - the OED have traced this back to a piece he wrote

K. ÆLFRED Boeth. xxxv. §5 [6] Swa mid læs worda swa mid ma, swæðer we hit ȝereccan maȝon. ("whether we may prove it with less words or with more")

"fewer is countable, less is uncountable" only dates from 1770 and even then, it was just the opinion of an author at the time (Robert Baker) who wrote

"This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better. No Fewer than a Hundred appears to me not only more elegant than No less than a Hundred, but strictly proper." (note bold sections highlighting it was just his view).

10 items or less or 10 items or fewer, fewer nuns, less nuns - all acceptable in English, a language which constantly evolves.

Have a look at these sources if you like:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html
https://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/10-items-or-less-is-just-fine/

BeenThroughItAll

pendragon_arther wrote: »

And I'm towing a caravan too.:D

So then, you ARE speeding, at 59MPH in a 60MPH limit, and 69MPH in a 70MPH limit.


Now, cyber saint you ain't.

Joe_Horner

pendragon_arther wrote: »

I'm a cyber saint and have never ever exceeded the speed limit. I drive at a consistent 29mph in a 30mph limit, 39mph in a 40mph zone and 49mph in a 50mph limit, 59mph in a 60mph limit and 69mph in a 70mph zone.

And that's regardless of the weather, traffic conditions, road surface, unsupervised sprogs playing around you. But it's ok, BRAKE say you're a good driver cos you never break the limit




offered in the same spirit that (I hope) your post was :beer:

robatwork

Is it a technicality if the date is wrong on the NIP?

Because that *would* get you off a speeding fine even if you are otherwise bang to rights, guv.

facade

In that case, the registered keeper would sit on the original NIP for 14 days from the correct date, to prevent them issuing a corrected one in time, and then send it back with a letter stating that the car was not at that location on the day named in the NIP.

Once a driver has been nominated by the reg. keeper it is going to be very difficult to get the case dropped without going to court.