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

Moto2

alanrowell wrote: »

Have they added some? Up until last year I did Edinburgh-Tyneside and back on a weekly basis and none of the cameras were at the end of dual carriageways.

The nearest I can think of is on the Berwick Bypass on the uphill section after the River Tweed going north (but that isn't dual carriageway) or at Felton where the speed camera is on the dual carriageway a couple of hundred metres before the end of the dual carriageway going south.

Deleted_User wrote: »

There is one southbound past Alnwick as the road goes back into single carriageway.

The Alnwick and Felton are one and the same

As alanrowell says, there are no cameras on the A1 in Northumberland at the end of dual carriageways other than that one and that's located well inside the 70mph section so wouldn't catch people failing to slow to 60.

Lord_Baltimore

George_Michael wrote: »

Well done for not simply bending over and taking the fine and points as strongly suggested by one particular poster on here.....

A discussion took place on the basis of incomplete information. The additional information moved the goal posts.

That seems easy enough to understand?

Nick_C

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

A discussion took place on the basis of incomplete information. The additional information moved the goal posts.

That seems easy enough to understand?

You were wrong. Man up and admit it.

OP was clear in his first post that he was not speeding, but you chose not to believe him.

facade

To be fair to Lord Baltimore-

OP was also fairly clear that it was a GATSO photograph, taken on the white lines. (But didn't see a flash)
It is very unlikely that a GATSO would be covering the wrong limit, as they have to be installed, on fitted posts, just like the speed limit signs and it doesn't take much wit to get that right, and as I posted (post #8), you'd expect thousands of appeals over time if they'd got it wrong, so I suggested that something wasn't right with the description (post #8)

Subsequently, it appears to be a manned speed camera. They normally send the money shot if you ask for "photograph to help identify the driver", a copy of that with the reg blanked out would have given enough information to have nipped this in the bud on page 1.

George_Michael

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

A discussion took place on the basis of incomplete information. The additional information moved the goal posts.

That seems easy enough to understand?

What additional information?
The OP has only made two posts, the opening one and the follow up to let everyone know what the outcome was. All of the posts where you basically told the OP to accept the penalty were based on the information given in the opening post, a post in which the OP:
1/ Denied speeding (which was correct).

2/ Stated that they didn't see a flash (which was correct).

3/ Stated that the photograph clearly showed that they were still in the 40mph zone (which was correct)

In your very first post you didn't ask for any other information, you simply stated in black and white "You were speeding. I'd pay up."

You made an incorrect assumption based on the clear and correct facts given and for some reason you can't or won't admit that you simply jumped to the wrong conclusion.

facade wrote: »

To be fair to Lord Baltimore-

OP was also fairly clear that it was a GATSO photograph, taken on the white lines. (But didn't see a flash)

Subsequently, it appears to be a manned speed camera.

The OP made no mention of the camera being a GATSO and they also said that they clearly saw the camera and they made no mention of it being manned. Front facing cameras (which is what the OP encountered) use infra red flash which is why they didn't see this.
Manned speed cameras don't have any requirement for the white lines on the road (something that the OP also stated were present)

Johno100

If an OP is not an active part of a thread then it shouldn't be a surprise that other FMs will extrapolate based on the available information.

George_Michael

Johno100 wrote: »

If an OP is not an active part of a thread then it shouldn't be a surprise that other FMs will extrapolate based on the available information.

What available information?
The information that stated that the photograph clearly showed that they were still in the 40mph limit yet the NIP was for doing 34mph?


There's extrapolating and then there's jumping to totally the wrong conclusion and telling the OP to accept the penalty and pay up before asking for any other information.

Johno100

George_Michael wrote: »

What available information?
The information that stated that the photograph clearly showed that they were still in the 40mph limit yet the NIP was for doing 34mph?


There's extrapolating and then there's jumping to totally the wrong conclusion and telling the OP to accept the penalty and pay up before asking for any other information.

Information was asked for from the second post onwards, when it wasn't forthcoming then some posters speculated, that's the way it happens on MSE.

Lord_Baltimore

Nick_C wrote: »

You were wrong. Man up and admit it.

OP was clear in his first post that he was not speeding, but you chose not to believe him.

There is no 'wrong' and 'right' when a disussion ensues on an incomplete and misleading description. It is not a case of 'believing the OP'; I gave an opinion, as did everyone, on the basis of the known information which turned out to be half a story.

I'm happy to admit we were all led up the garden path. Perhaps you could 'man up' to this? There again, it is a childish turn of phrase don't you think?

facade wrote: »

To be fair to Lord Baltimore

Thank you for filling in the gaps for those who apparently prefer not to think for themselves.

George_Michael wrote: »

What additional information?
The OP has only made two posts.....

Post 1 - The OP posted a version of events; and
Post 2 - The OP added significant information none of which we were party to.

Post 2 is additional information. Not sure I can make that any clearer for you. You seem to be supplementing your comments with the benefit of hindsight.

Nor did I jump to a conclusion; I offered an opinion on the basis of the known facts which is all a forum contributor can hope to do - by presenting the OP with alternative opinions, he can assess his position with balance.

The forum concept might not be something you quite grasp.

Johno100 wrote: »

If an OP is not an active part of a thread then it shouldn't be a surprise that other FMs will extrapolate based on the available information.

Precisely.

rich13348

Lord Baltimore: Post 2 - The OP added significant information none of which we were party to.

But neither was the OP he only found this out AFTER going down to the office and was subsequently given it when it 2 hours later when it had been investigated.

Johno100: If an OP is not an active part of a thread then it shouldn't be a surprise that other FMs will extrapolate based on the available information.

Lord Balitmore: Precisely.

Yes damn Malcolm45's father for dying, so inconsiderate.