Pulled over by police for speeding

loskie

ok please explain to me and give an example.
Thanks.

Andrew_Ryan_89

Out of curiosity, if you are caught by speed cameras on numerous occasions on one journey, do you get multiple tickets and fines?

Silver-Surfer_2

Andrew_Ryan_89 wrote: »

Out of curiosity, if you are caught by speed cameras on numerous occasions on one journey, do you get multiple tickets and fines?

If it's the same road and speed limit there's arguement it's part of one journey. It's more difficult if the speed limit changes.

Robisere

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

And you base that on?

Perhaps you are right in this and your later post, and certainly others here seem to think so. But I was simply angered by someone committing the same offence TWICE, and only thinking about how to avoid punishment. When I was in the motor trade, I recovered vehicles and I witnessed the results of speeding. An RTC is not ever a pretty sight when there are serious injuries and/or fatalities, and an impact at the sort of speeds the OP speaks about, would result in at least serious injury. Many of the incidents I experienced, resulted in the speeding driver causing injury and death (in 2 cases) to others, whilst walking away from the scene without a scratch. Ruining the lives of others, including the families of those injured or killed.

It is a true statement: SPEED KILLS! Saying that it was an empty road does not give anyone the right to drive at those speeds. In my opinion this driver needs to learn a lesson.

Silver-Surfer_2

Robisere wrote: »

Perhaps you are right in this and your later post, and certainly others here seem to think so. But I was simply angered by someone committing the same offence TWICE, and only thinking about how to avoid punishment. When I was in the motor trade, I recovered vehicles and I witnessed the results of speeding. An RTC is not ever a pretty sight when there are serious injuries and/or fatalities, and an impact at the sort of speeds the OP speaks about, would result in at least serious injury. Many of the incidents I experienced, resulted in the speeding driver causing injury and death (in 2 cases) to others, whilst walking away from the scene without a scratch. Ruining the lives of others, including the families of those injured or killed.

It is a true statement: SPEED KILLS! Saying that it was an empty road does not give anyone the right to drive at those speeds. In my opinion this driver needs to learn a lesson.

It's inappropriate speed that's the problem not exceeding the limit.

Johno100

Robisere wrote: »

It is a true statement: SPEED KILLS! Saying that it was an empty road does not give anyone the right to drive at those speeds. In my opinion this driver needs to learn a lesson.

Not a true statement at all, it's hitting things and stopping suddenly that's the problem.

Car_54

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Yes you can.

No you can't. If you "admit guilt" as the previous poster said then it's all over except the sentencing.

If you want to bring in "technicalities" you need to plead NOT GUILTY.

Silver-Surfer_2

[quote=[Deleted User];71147331]No you can't. If you "admit guilt" as the previous poster said then it's all over except the sentencing.

If you want to bring in "technicalities" you need to plead NOT GUILTY.[/QUOTE]


He meant to your solicitor not as a plea, do keep up.

Richard53

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

It's inappropriate speed that's the problem not exceeding the limit.

Precisely. The limit is necessarily a broad average for that stretch of road, for the average driver in the average car. Someone going over the number on the lolly stick doesn't instantly become a slayer of millions.


If speed were dangerous in itself, then Concorde would have been the most unsafe thing on the planet.


That said, I am pretty good about sticking to limits. I'm strict with 30s and 40s and a bit more flexible with 50s, 60s and 70s, but if I ever go over them, I am aware I am doing so, take extra caution, and would not complain if I were caught.


Personally, I would be happier if there were fewer speed limits, focused on specific hazard areas, and rigidly enforced. Put a camera outside a school with a 20 zone, put it on a timer, and prosecute *every* driver who breaks that limit during the relevant hours. They would soon learn. And then use a bit of discretion over the guy who does 85 on an empty motorway.

anotheruser

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

It's inappropriate speed that's the problem not exceeding the limit.

And I'd say the most appropriate speed for that road, is the limit...
Even if it's an empty 4-lane motorway, it doesn't mean you won't loose control - even if you're doing the limit.

Johno100 wrote: »

Not a true statement at all, it's hitting things and stopping suddenly that's the problem.

If you're being that pedantic, then you may as well say the root of the problem was loosing control of the vehicle. But then I suppose if you lost control because of a fox, then the fox would be the problem.
I guess the adverts should say "foxes kill".

The problem is, a lot of people wouldn't understand "stopping suddenly kills" - doesn't quite have the same ring.