Speeding ticket for doing 34 in a 30 zone despite being in a 40

Lord_Baltimore

Ectophile wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the prosecution might be deliberately withholding evidence from the defence?

I don't know; I asked a question. What do you think? Presenting evidence in Court is not 'deliberately withholding' it is it?

shaun_from_Africa

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

I don't know; I asked a question. What do you think? Presenting evidence in Court is not 'deliberately withholding' it is it?

It may well be.
If the prosecution has the evidence in hand then they are duty bound to present this to the accused before any court date. This is covered by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (I've not checked yet but a minimum of 7 days before proceedings begin rings a bell).


About the only time that evidence can be held back from the defence is if the CPS obtain a court order because release of the information is against the public interest, something that is generally only used for major crime issues.

ElefantEd

maninthestreet wrote: »

Just how long do you think it takes to reduce speed by just 4mph???

If you decelerate at 0.5g (5m/s/s) which I think is plausible, you can slow down from 34mph (15m/s) to 30mph (13.4m/s) in 0.32 seconds, during which you'll cover a distance of 4.5m. If you really jammed the brakes on you could reduce this further.

I would be surprised if it was possible to be convicted of going 34mph in a 40 zone even if there was a smaller distance than this available; there would simply be too much doubt that could easily be cast. However, we don't really have the full facts to confirm where the photo was taken.

Lord_Baltimore

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It may well be.
If the prosecution has the evidence in hand then they are duty bound to present this to the accused before any court date.

There is no Court date yet as far as we know. Evidence would be made available at the time of summons I think? It just depends whether the OP wants to go this route and is prepared to put his wallet where his principles might be. And that's assuming his description of events are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So help me God .

ElefantEd wrote: »

If you decelerate at 0.5g (5m/s/s) which I think is plausible, you can slow down from 34mph (15m/s) to 30mph (13.4m/s) in 0.32 seconds, during which you'll cover a distance of 4.5m. If you really jammed the brakes on you could reduce this further.

I would be surprised if it was possible to be convicted of going 34mph in a 40 zone even if there was a smaller distance than this available; there would simply be too much doubt that could easily be cast. However, we don't really have the full facts to confirm where the photo was taken.

Yes, crucial facts are unavailable such as the reaction times of the driver in this particular case. You might be 20; he might be 70. The extenuating circumstances preclude a meaningful conclusion in the absence of the full facts.

SeduLOUs

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Yes, crucial facts are unavailable such as the reaction times of the driver in this particular case. You might be 20; he might be 70. The extenuating circumstances preclude a meaningful conclusion in the absence of the full facts.

I'm not sure reaction times are relevant - we aren't talking about a child jumping out in front of the car.

The car is already slowing down in anticipation of a reduced speed area - the driver has already reacted to the earlier notices of an upcoming 30 limit.

Lord_Baltimore

SeduLOUs wrote: »

I'm not sure reaction times are relevant - we aren't talking about a child jumping out in front of the car.

Perhaps not but this camera is unusual in that it (apparently) monitors the actual dissection between the 30/40 speed zones with measurement spread across the zones. Might mean reaction time is a factor? But anyway, we just don't know.

SeduLOUs wrote: »

The Car is already slowing down in anticipation of a reduced speed area - the driver has already reacted to the earlier notices of an upcoming 30 limit.

The driver should have reacted to earlier notices but may not have slowed down enough. It's all conjecture.

dannyrst

The OP isn't coming back. The camera in question probably doesn't exist.

Lord_Baltimore

SlipperySid wrote: »

Do such cameras exist and if so are they type approved?

According to the original post, they do.

SlipperySid wrote: »

Seems like you're prolonging a pointless arguement.

I'm not prolonging a pointless argument; I'm responding to the views of others. Your comment seems to be pointless.

dannyrst wrote: »

The OP isn't coming back. The camera in question probably doesn't exist.

dannyrst

If this camera is real (which I cannot see it being), there is no way you could prosecute someone going 34mph in a 40mph zone because they are about to enter a 30mph zone. That person could be speeding up, gently slowing down or standing on the brakes.

Lord_Baltimore

dannyrst wrote: »

If this camera is real (which I cannot see it being), there is no way you could prosecute someone going 34mph in a 40mph zone because they are about to enter a 30mph zone. That person could be speeding up, gently slowing down or standing on the brakes.

On reflection, I think Sid was right:

SlipperySid wrote: »

Seems like you're prolonging a pointless arguement.