Speeding fine for imaginary speed?

GingerBob_3

Car_54 wrote: »

You are a criminal whenever you commit the offence, whether or not you are caught and convicted!

A fixed penalty, according to the Act which introduced them, is a "punishment without conviction". It's difficult to argue that
acceptance of the punishment is anything other than an admission of guilt, given that the recipient has the option of challenging the prosecution in court.

When do you cease to have the 'criminal' epithet attached to you?

Franz_Ferdinand

Jon_01 wrote: »

Yes, that right. But between the offest they have on the hardstanding and slight curve to the right and the size of the sign they can't see past. And the sign nicely hid them. I agree that they should be there, there are some total morons that go down that straight so fast I think I've stopped sometimes!

I'm giving in on it. I've asked elsewhere and once they produce their 'evidence' the court will automatically side with them. I have no way of proving I was only doing 37 (and I was doing 37). So they get their £100 and there's nothing anyone can do to prove them wrong.

So much for the great British legal system, which it seems the police can manipulate to fund them!

You may get offered a course.

Franz_Ferdinand

facade wrote: »

No you don't.

Accepting a fixed penalty is not an admission of guilt, the other example in my post was wrong though, you do have to admit guilt to accept a caution.


(This case relates to a disorder offence, originally dealt with by means of a FPN.)


Obviously, you could say that if someone has committed a crime, then they are by definition a criminal, and that they wouldn't accept a fixed penalty unless they knew they were guilty/had committed said crime, but in the OPs case, he may choose to accept the fixed penalty, even though he is sure that he has committed no crime, as it is the path of least resistance/cost.

Ok admission was the wrong choice of word.

You are accepting the course of action. Which is a fine and points imposed by a court.

reeac

[QUOTE=Jon 01;71698837
I have an app on my phone that not only tell me my speed but also give a warning if I exceed a set speed (I had a knee op and I can be a bit 'lead footed').

When I passed the van both my car speedometer and the app said I was doing 37 (in a 40 area). They say I was doing 47!

So, is there any point even trying to fight this?

Thanks...[/QUOTE]

Did you tell the policeman that you used your phone whilst driving to tell you your speed?

Stoke

reeac wrote: »

Did you tell the policeman that you used your phone whilst driving to tell you your speed?

He didn't necessarily use his phone? Maybe his phone was in a cradle?

esuhl

phoenix_w wrote: »

The problem, as I see it, is that the police are over dependent on speed cameras to do all of their traffic work. Where I live there are rarely any traffic cops on the beat - the roads are completely lawless. You can be a complete muppet behind the wheel and drive as fast as you like almost anywhere. So long as you remember to slow down for the odd speed camera or know the same tired and lazy places the vans work, you're laughing.

Well, that's down to police/government policy, I guess. Perhaps speed-cameras are being used as an excuse to reduce police presence, but they shouldn't be, and I think that's a separate issue.

If speed-cameras are such a money-earner, we should put them on every main road and use the revenue to pay for more beat cops.

reeac

Stoke wrote: »

He didn't necessarily use his phone? Maybe his phone was in a cradle?

Even so, the hand that rocks the cradle wobbles the steering wheel. On our narrow local roads if an approaching car is wandering around I nearly always see that the driver has a phone to their ear as they pass by.

Mercdriver

esuhl wrote: »

CRIMINALS also break speed limits and kill old ladies due to their arrogance in thinking that they are above the law.

Does it really matter if speed cameras are sometimes used to generate revenue? What better way to subsidise the police than by getting criminals to pay? If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime.

Except what the freemen of the land argue is wrong. The revenue doesn't go to the police. Fines go into the general pot.

As for the irrelevant pointing out of Hillsborough, the incompetence itself wasn't corrupt. It was the covering up of that incompetence that was corrupt.

Still, having said that, just because one policeman is corrupt is not to say that all police are corrupt. It's like saying that all scousers are thieves. And we know how offensive that is.

Mercdriver

Jon_01 wrote: »

I've just had a letter for a speeding fine!

Now, I know people try all kinds of things to 'get out' these things (I used to work as fraud investigator for one of the mobile networks, I know how much BS people can come out with).

The thing is, I saw them setting up the van when I drove up the road 20 minutes before, I was aware that it was there (even though it was hidden behind a road sign!).
I have an app on my phone that not only tell me my speed but also give a warning if I exceed a set speed (I had a knee op and I can be a bit 'lead footed').

When I passed the van both my car speedometer and the app said I was doing 37 (in a 40 area). They say I was doing 47! Which is complete fiction.

I've spoken to an office in the traffic dept who was clearly having a very bad day as I've never spoken with someone that had such an attitude of 'we're right, you're wrong, we won't talk about it. Take it to court (where you'll lose), if you want to challenge it'.

Obviously I can't prove what I'm saying and I'm assuming that the court would just take the presented evidence as true and find against me.

So, is there any point even trying to fight this?

Thanks...

Here's a rare post in this thread. One that is actually relevant.

How do you know where exactly they pinged you? They can catch you 1km away. So you may have been doing 37 when you passed them but they may have got you before that.

It's unlikely to be wrong. If you haven't taken a course in the last 3 years then a course will mean no points, and unless with Admiral Group likely no uplift in your insurance for that. Otherwise 3 points and £100.

Franz_Ferdinand

Mercdriver wrote: »

Here's a rare post in this thread. One that is actually relevant.

How do you know where exactly they pinged you? They can catch you 1km away. So you may have been doing 37 when you passed them but they may have got you before that.

It's unlikely to be wrong. If you haven't taken a course in the last 3 years then a course will mean no points, and unless with Admiral Group likely no uplift in your insurance for that. Otherwise 3 points and £100.

He's claiming they haven't got that much of a view. He need to go back and look at it from the view they had.