New speed cameras on the A40

ontheroad1970

Goudy said:

Average speed cameras are in pairs and speeding through each pair would be a separate offence. 

There have been plenty of similar reports of drivers receiving multiple speeding fines on this very stretch of road.
In fact it's been repeatedly reported by the Evening Standard as London's most prolific "speed trap" and seems to generate over 50 million a year.

These types of average speed system appear to work better on roads like this than individual cameras because drivers speed up and slow down for those and often cause further chaos slowing down at the last second.

I believe there was a lot of drag racing going on on this stretch of road and the local MP and councillors campaigned the mayor long and hard to help prevent it.
It seems to have moved these people on to elsewhere, there was another recent crackdown in London last week.

These average cameras should be set to the NPCC guidelines of 10%+2mph, but I am lead to believe they could have some more variance than that, either way. After all, it's only a guideline.

As already mentioned, you should be offered a speed awareness course for the first offence but if it looks like you could tot up to a ban, you might want to think about having a day in court with a solicitor (do not do this alone).

If a ban truly leaves you in hardship and the court agrees, then you might get lucky.


 

Some might argue that it is best to hold as much money as possible for taxi use etc rather than paying for a solicitor who will want paying regardless of the result.  It could also be argued that there is more sincerity in arguing for an exemption or reduction oneself rather than having a professional say it for them.  

Goudy

ontheroad1970 said:

Goudy said:

Average speed cameras are in pairs and speeding through each pair would be a separate offence. 

There have been plenty of similar reports of drivers receiving multiple speeding fines on this very stretch of road.
In fact it's been repeatedly reported by the Evening Standard as London's most prolific "speed trap" and seems to generate over 50 million a year.

These types of average speed system appear to work better on roads like this than individual cameras because drivers speed up and slow down for those and often cause further chaos slowing down at the last second.

I believe there was a lot of drag racing going on on this stretch of road and the local MP and councillors campaigned the mayor long and hard to help prevent it.
It seems to have moved these people on to elsewhere, there was another recent crackdown in London last week.

These average cameras should be set to the NPCC guidelines of 10%+2mph, but I am lead to believe they could have some more variance than that, either way. After all, it's only a guideline.

As already mentioned, you should be offered a speed awareness course for the first offence but if it looks like you could tot up to a ban, you might want to think about having a day in court with a solicitor (do not do this alone).

If a ban truly leaves you in hardship and the court agrees, then you might get lucky.


 

Some might argue that it is best to hold as much money as possible for taxi use etc rather than paying for a solicitor who will want paying regardless of the result.  It could also be argued that there is more sincerity in arguing for an exemption or reduction oneself rather than having a professional say it for them.  

That might be true but generally if you don't know what you are arguing about and don't know how to do it in that environment, you're digging your own grave and could actually be making your own case against yourself.

I'm sure lots of offenders have represented themselves and use the exact same arguments as Nick Freeman, but who is more successful?

TooManyPoints

There is a bit of a loop hole...

It isn't a loop hole. It is a legitimate defence to multiple prosecutions for the same offence. The offence is exceeding the speed limit. The law does not say you can only do so for (say) half a mile and if you continue you commit a second offence. It's a bit like facing multiple prosecutions for burglary for each item taken when a house is burgled. Only one burglary has taken place.

Goudy

Ok, loop hole is the wrong choice of words.

But the problem is it wasn't one offence caught multiple times.
They returned later and did the same thing in the other direction.

So there is a possibility of another offence caught multiple times on the same road just in the other direction.

Convincing the court three each way is actually only two might take some doing.

ontheroad1970

Goudy said:

ontheroad1970 said:

Goudy said:

Average speed cameras are in pairs and speeding through each pair would be a separate offence. 

There have been plenty of similar reports of drivers receiving multiple speeding fines on this very stretch of road.
In fact it's been repeatedly reported by the Evening Standard as London's most prolific "speed trap" and seems to generate over 50 million a year.

These types of average speed system appear to work better on roads like this than individual cameras because drivers speed up and slow down for those and often cause further chaos slowing down at the last second.

I believe there was a lot of drag racing going on on this stretch of road and the local MP and councillors campaigned the mayor long and hard to help prevent it.
It seems to have moved these people on to elsewhere, there was another recent crackdown in London last week.

These average cameras should be set to the NPCC guidelines of 10%+2mph, but I am lead to believe they could have some more variance than that, either way. After all, it's only a guideline.

As already mentioned, you should be offered a speed awareness course for the first offence but if it looks like you could tot up to a ban, you might want to think about having a day in court with a solicitor (do not do this alone).

If a ban truly leaves you in hardship and the court agrees, then you might get lucky.


 

Some might argue that it is best to hold as much money as possible for taxi use etc rather than paying for a solicitor who will want paying regardless of the result.  It could also be argued that there is more sincerity in arguing for an exemption or reduction oneself rather than having a professional say it for them.  

That might be true but generally if you don't know what you are arguing about and don't know how to do it in that environment, you're digging your own grave and could actually be making your own case against yourself.

I'm sure lots of offenders have represented themselves and use the exact same arguments as Nick Freeman, but who is more successful?

Sorry I thought you ere saying to use a solicitor to get exemption to the 6 month ban.  

If the police won't agree to treat them as a single offence, then a solicitor may be useful, while being mindful that they get paid regardless of result, and no one should see the free preliminary meeting as anything other than a sales meeting.

TooManyPoints

But the problem is it wasn't one offence caught multiple times.
They returned later and did the same thing in the other direction.

I think the OP understands that he might face a minimum of two allegations (i.e. one in each direction).

Convincing the court three each way is actually only two might take some doing.

I think that if the court accepts the principle that three apprehensions in one direction amounts to only one offence, they would be bound to consider the same for three apprehensions in the opposite direction (provided the circumstances were he same).

However, I think the biggest problem he faces is this:

On my return trip I did something similar only slowing down once I saw the speed cameras.

On his own admission, his speed was not in excess of the speed limit for the entirety of the stretch. In fact, what he did (exceeded the speed limit either side of the cameras but slowed down to within the limit when he passed them) illustrates nicely that he committed separate offences. Essentially it was the sight of the cameras which moderated his speed, not the speed limit signs.

For this reason I believe that unless he is prepared to commit perjury, that argument will not succeed.

That leaves "plan B" (separate offences but committed on the same occasion). It is entirely a matter for the court to decide but I think this has a reasonable chance of success.

Goudy

There are two options aren't they.
Hold your hands up by post and accept your fete.
Or
Go to court and accept their judgement.

The charges would be the same, but you can't argue one way but perhaps can the other.

If your livelihood was on the line and you would struggle to ferry your disabled child to treatment without a licence and it was obvious taking option one was to result in a ban, then perhaps court would be the route to go if you thought you had some sort of chance.

You'd probably need professional help to know if you had a chance and what sort of chance you had, which would then lead to if you needed that same professional help in court.

There's little argument of the speeding offence/s, they have lots of evidence from two or more average speed cameras.
So you'd need to try and argue those down to less (speeding once, just caught twice), which would result in less points or argue the point of hardship or argue both points.

If I was going to potentially lose my job and struggle to get my disabled child to treatment, I might think it worth paying for some professional help.

It might actually look to the court that I take this very seriously and I'm not just chancing my arm as a barrack room barrister making poor arguments and wasting the courts time.
The professional will know the state of play in court and would be, in the eyes of the court, efficient.

I have actually had some experience of this myself years ago on a different motoring offence (when I was young and foolish rather old and foolish like now).
I can't remember how much the solicitor was (it was some associate of the solicitor in court), perhaps a hundred or so, but that was in the late 90's.
I remember it being worth it though, I got off with just a fine and no points.
I do remember the associate telling me to look at shoes and appear remorseful, was in and out in minutes.