I've got a speeding ticket !!

Hintza

It's hardly worth asking for advice on this forum about speeding tickets, I did once and had the usual hang em brigade on my back.

But in general the advice is sound not worth the effort doing anything unless you are 100% sure you were not speeding or if you licence/livelehood are at risk.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Don't pay a thing until you've asked on the forums at https://www.pepipoo.com

nej wrote: »

One point to make is that ALL car speedometers over-read.

Not all. Most.

Happychappy

I always thought speeding fines were a voluntary tax ? ; )

How would the questions go on the barrack room lawyer site, duh

Question "Was I speeding?"

Reply "How the !!!! do we know?"

Question "oh ok, thanks"

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Or perhaps the conversation would be "was the site correctly signed?" "No, I've checked, the speed limit signs do not match those specified in the regulations" "No offence committed then."

Or perhaps the video might show that the OP wasn't speeding. Or perhaps the camera operator didn't follow ACPO guidelines to the extent that a faulty reading was recorded. Or perhaps it was a cloned vehicle.

bert&ernie

Unlike most other offences, the police rarely have to actually prove that a motorist was speeding.

They assert that you were speeding and offer you the chance to 'fess up in return for a fixed penalty of a fine and points. If you want to challenge their assertion and demand to see the evidence, you are threatened with having to go to court and risk a higher penalty.

The fixed penalty notice is essentially the offer of a crude plea bargain. It’s such an efficient process that it has effectively normalised the offence of speeding – so many people have a three point conviction that it carries virtually no stigma. The sad truth is that most people would rather take the fixed penalty than fight it, even if they don’t believe they were speeding.

Because the police rarely have to put their evidence before the court, the public is expected to have blind faith in the system. The police effectively get to act as judge and jury. The reason people appear to avoid conviction on so called “technicalities” is that the assertions made by the police must be backed by a robust system – when any part of this is proved to be inadequate, then you can’t be expected to have any faith in the assertion. Furthermore, it’s highly unlikely that the accused can prove they weren’t speeding, and neither should they be obliged to – the onus should be on the police to prove they were. That means collecting the evidence properly.

Happychappy

So what is the reason why a police officer would say someone was speeding ? are they on commission, do they get extra clubcard points ? what is the reason they would perjur themselves? surely you dont believe the revenue building and Elvis lives on the moon theory? Why would an individual police officer make up the fact that someone was speeding, are they on a percentage such as 100 speeders my son and on day you will be chief ; ) maybe that's where I went wrong ; (

How with your infinite wisdom do you support the assertion that the police are judge and jury ?

The police officer purely offers evidence to the crown prosecution service so as to support their case, as can the squidgy organic bit hanging onto the wheel of their missile who propels itself forward without a clue as to it's speed or surroundings. Funny old world and certainly not an immotive subject.

goldspanners

the police are acting as judge and jury by issuing the ticket.

i personally feel with the amount of revenue made by cameras,this should be put towards a special traffic court.
the police must have all thier evidence,collected properly as per regulations,then issue the offender with a court date,take it to court and then judged as an individual case.
surely someone doing 55mph in a 30 zone should get a higher fine than someone doing 35mph in a 30 zone?
so who are the police to decide this?

Hintza

Happychappy wrote: »

How with your infinite wisdom do you support the assertion that the police are judge and jury ?

The point is they don't offer evidence to the crown prosecution service until they are forced to and that only happens if you decline their kind offer of penalty points.

In most cases these units are not even manned by the police but by "safety camera partnership operators". If the government were serious about road safety you would see more police on the road actually policing bad driving instead of sticking a camera on a straight bit of road on a dry day in good visibility which is the norm.

There is no other area in law where thye public are so disadvantaged by the system of guilty until you can (attempt) to prove your innocence.

It is all about revenue collection and nothing to do with road safety.

goldspanners

Hintza wrote: »

In most cases these units are not even manned by the police but by "safety camera partnership operators". If the government were serious about road safety you would see more police on the road actually policing bad driving instead of sticking a camera on a straight bit of road on a dry day in good visibility which is the norm.

It is all about revenue collection and nothing to do with road safety.

exactly,they should be pulling the middle lane hoggers,the idiots who deliberatly block of roundabouts and cross roads,the folk that cannot judge the size of thier cars causing congestion.these are the real problems on our roads.

bert&ernie

Happychappy wrote: »

..
How with your infinite wisdom do you support the assertion that the police are judge and jury ?
..

Did you actually read all of my post - you seem to have missed the point by a country mile?

Most speeding tickets never get anywhere near a court because the accused is bullied into accepting the fixed penalty. Is that simple enough for you?