Two speeding tickets on the same day!

[Deleted User]

From my experience, these sort of things usually 'happen in threes'.

Are you sure that there's not another hiding in the wings? :mad:

AdrianC

Car_54 wrote: »

Why? And how would that be calculated?

Because otherwise they can't be anything but two separate offences, since the driver MUST have dropped below the limit between them.

As for how - simple, if you know how far apart they are and the time difference between photos. Which you do.

Let's take a nice simple example. Two cameras five miles apart in a 60mph zone. If they're triggered 4min apart, then the average speed is 75mph. If they're triggered 6min apart, then the average speed is 48mph.

FormulaDriven

Just exploring this idea of what constitutes separate offences:


If we imagine a 50mph-limit road with several speed cameras. If a driver is doing 60mph and gets flashed by the first camera, are we really saying that he could maintain 60 through all the remaining cameras and then argue it was all one offence, so can only be penalised once? Surely, there would be some further consequence (or the law is phrased to exclude this kind of argument?)?

AdrianC

FormulaDriven wrote: »

Just exploring this idea of what constitutes separate offences:


If we imagine a 50mph-limit road with several speed cameras. If a driver is doing 60mph and gets flashed by the first camera, are we really saying that he could maintain 60 through all the remaining cameras and then argue it was all one offence, so can only be penalised once? Surely, there would be some further consequence (or the law is phrased to exclude this kind of argument?)?

He'd have to refuse the FPNs and take it to court - with the resulting increases in costs and likely fines - but, yes, he could certainly have a good try at it. It wouldn't be worth it unless there was a serious potential benefit, like avoiding a totting-up ban.

FormulaDriven

Thanks for your answer, Adrian.


I'm really just curious about the legal theory rather than whether it would be a wise course in practice to take it to court: are you saying that you could drive for hundreds of miles over the speed limit and in the letter of the law only commit one offence of the same seriousness as briefly exceeding the limit?

AdrianC

FormulaDriven wrote: »

I'm really just curious about the legal theory rather than whether it would be a wise course in practice to take it to court: are you saying that you could drive for hundreds of miles over the speed limit and in the letter of the law only commit one offence of the same seriousness as briefly exceeding the limit?

If a police car follows you for three miles, and you're over the limit all that time, that's one offence.

Thurrafork

Another dull follow up question...
My driving licence is still the ancient paper document issued to me in 1992. Would it be worth sorting out a new photocard licence before this whole driving penalty thing moves forward, or would it make more sense to have it issued as part of that process?


Thanks

AdrianC

You don't need to have a photocard to accept a fixed penalty points. If you've not moved since 1992, and you've not hit your 70th birthday, your existing paper licence is still perfectly valid.

BUT - you WILL need to take photo id to any SAC you go on, as well as your licence.

Thurrafork

Ha! Just checked and my paper licence still has my parents address (where I was living in '92) - I thought I'd changed it!
So I will probably sort out a new photocard licence, then I'll be all present and correct and ready for my penalty points.

AdrianC

If it's an address you can be contacted via, then that's all that's legally needed.

Whether your own address would be a good idea is a different question...

TBH, I find my photocard licence the only ID I ever need - everything from hiring vehicles, here or abroad, to just picking up packages from the post office. Quite why the UK stuck with non-photocard licences for SO long, I have no idea.