imlach

Fair enough. I probably agree as regards "unquantifiable". However, the law exists "as is", and if you know you're about to get bitten by it, why is that not deterrent enough to stop you doing it?

ajm

For the reasons above.... it is natural to assume a driving style that is unforced, and in most cases this is cruising at a speed about 10-20% above the speed limit!

Do you have any sailing experience? If so there is a good analogy to be had. If you have ever tried steering a boat in a heavy following swell against a compass you would know it is impossible to keep the needle pointing where it should. However, if you line up the course against a distant landmark and aim for that landmark it is much easier because the boat's lurching can be neglected. The same is true for driving. Going with the flow is much easier and safer than trying not to exceed exactly 30mph!

imlach

Hmm...I'm not sure if the sailing anology holds?
A boat is subject to forces applied to it outside the control of the person at the helm....ie, wind conditions, sea conditions.

A car does at 30mph does not have :

a) a sail on the roof influenced by unpredicatable wind conditions.
b) an unpredictable road condition influencing the speed (ie, if you're driving downhill, you KNOW you speed will increase).

A car has a person at the helm that influences the MAJORITY of that 30mph speed.

ajm

The analogy is between the course of the boat and the speed of the car. It is easier to go with the flow of the waves and let the boat do +/- 15 degrees than it is to fight the helm to make it go dead on course. You still end up heading in the same direction. Likewise it is easier to go with the flow of traffic than it is to impose a 30mph cutoff. Of course you CAN make it do 30 mph but it isn't the easiest and most natural to do so.

imlach

What rubbish.

If you are talking about "flow" and how it is not "easy" and "natural", then why do people do 37mph in a 30mph, yet manage 80mph in a 70mph zone?

A boat is not subject to "limits". A vehicle is. I've not yet seen Gatsos, police radar, and NIPs on the high seas

If you talk about "flow", then why do you not do 80mph in a 30mph zone if the "flow" allowed you to?

A car may "flow" at 40mph in top gear, but that isn't justification to allow it.

ajm

Steady on... that remains unproved as yet.

Not sure what point you are making here.

I am not denying that laws against speeding on roads exist, I am arguing that they shouldn't exist. I have been caught speeding a boat too though! :P

If it was safe to so so then why not?

I think you are misinterpreting "flow". I shall define it to save further confusion.... A vehicle doesn't come with a "flow speed" it is also a factor of road conditions, traffic conditions, weather condtions and hitherto unmentioned factors affecting safety at that given moment in time. Factors we are supposedly licensed as being competant at interpreting.

imlach

So you are effectively proposing we should have a form of anarchy on the roads? ie, we all decide for ourselves what the speed limits are, what the drink driving limits are?

imlach

....so if you were driving at 2am in an urban area, when you'd assume there'd be no kiddies around due to it being the middle of the night, it'd be safe to do 80mph?

So, what happens when said kiddie learns how to work the front door of the house and walks out into the middle of the road at 2am to face a car doing 80mph?

The main lesson learned in driving is to expect the unexpected. If there are houses around, one should not be doing 80mph, even if it IS 2am. Obviously 30mph may not save said child, but it'd give both parties a fighting chance.

That is why we have limits. Not just for revenue generation, but also for sense & sensibility

ajm

We have a form of anarchy already. If you are proposing controlling driving behaviour by quantifiable measures such as milligrams of alcohol per millilitre of blood, miles per hour, talking on a mobile phone, wearing a seatbelt then surely we are missing a few....

tailgating distance xm
Acceleration xm/s/s
Deceleration -xm/s/s
agressive steering? xdegrees/s

You see the problem?

ajm

Say there is a fixed probability of said child running onto the road within a fixed period of time (not statistically true but humour me ) then the less time a car spends on that road surely the less chance of the child being hit?

Speed IS a direct factor in likelihood of death IF a collision occurs, but this is irrelevent because speed is NOT a direct factor of collision ocurring in the first place!

imlach

I'm afraid I'm going to have to suspend my side of the discussion as I'm going to bed now. We'll see if any other protagonists have taken it up tmmrw

Night

ajm

Night

Brit_in_Japan

OK, let's use your non statistically true assumptions for the sake of arguement, and let's assume at some higher speed the probablility of an accident taking place is halved (humour me)

20 collisions with a child at lower speed (say 20mph) = 1 death
10 collisions at a higher speed (say 35 mph) = 5 deaths

And if you let people decide whether they are in a fit state to drink drive or not, what do you tell the family of some innocent who is killed as a result of the drunk drivers impaired judgement?

Do you not think that the law should be there to protect people?

:eek:

Yes the fact i had 9 on my licence did alter my driving style....no excuse i know but had loads on my mind from earlier had just taken a call to a customer site who had a 2 hour response and was not payin attention when i exited the 40mph zone and entered the 30mph zone on a road i was not familiar with. As a rule since amassing my points I drive like an old woman of 90 i regularly get called to Canary Wharf at night/early hours of the morning and trvel the entire way from Watford to site adhering to the speed limits....this means my journey now takes 2 hours rather than 1......I am usually very very careful....this was an exception.

imlach

Out of interest, given this "2 hour response" you have to adhere to, does this mean you often could not fulfill this response without breaking speed limits? Is it a safety critical/threat of life callout, or something else?

Surely your company has something to answer for if they are expecting you to perform a role which involves unlawful behaviour?

Spoon

Portishead residents must get some good shít!!

IanW

I work at the same company as so I have to work to the same constraints as he does, the 2 hour response is pretty much possible for me in any area of the city, however there are factors that are out of our control such as traffic, accidents and breakdowns, and if they delay the response to site then there is nothing else that we can humanly do about it other than keep the customer informed that i/we are on the way, but we are stuck en route. Without having a vehicle the job that and I do would be pretty much impossible out of hours, as sometimes we have finished work at Canary Wharf for example at 2am and at that time of the day there are no trains or anything running.

I would deffinatly speak to a solicitor though, they will be best placed to offer advice on the situation.

hedgehog

As suggested by others one thing that may well delay your appearance would be to plead not guilty. Such pleas usually result in the court appearance being moved back by some considerable time. You can change your plea at any time.

Another thing worth considering is asking to see all the evidence. If, for example, your alledged crime was shot on video then you should ask to see all the photos plus ALL the video for the WHOLE shift during which you were entrapped.

This usually throws them into a tail spin and they usually say something about the data protection act, or other old junk. You are entitled to see the evidence they have against you so you can have it subjected to expert examination to determine if their gear is correctly calibrated etc. If it is on video demand the WHOLE video and make sure the CPS and the court are aware of your demands and of whether they have been met. The court will not want to run with a case where the CPS haven't made their evidence available to you so you can play one off against the other.

It often takes quite some time for them to agree to present this evidence and, in many cases, they are unable or unwilling to do so and so the case is withdrawn. You are entitled to see this evidence 7 days before the court hearing, any less than that and you go, or write, to court saying that they didn't make the evidence available. This results in more delay or, possibly, the charges being withdrawn.

Using such tactics I'd say you stand a good chance of delaying the court appearance and avoiding the ban. However, I'd also say you need to get representation. It depends on what your license is worth to you and will not be cheap but get a solicitor who specialises in motoring law. You need someone who knows the fine detail as, in your case, that is what is going to save you a ban.

:eek:

It was a GATSO...and i have been sent two cracking photos of the rear of my car...................one however has been enlarged to A4 size whilst the other is A3......all sorts of urban myth flying about regarding these two pictures all pointing towrds 'tampering with evidence' think the best thing for me to do is get a brief, bust out my best suit (avaliable for weddings, funerals, christenings and bahmitzvahs (sp?))) and go plead my case to the best of my ability....thanks to everyone for the comments, suggestions, advice, pm's and wrist slappings....all very much appreciated....now all just sit back and watch this space.....

:eek:

At the end of the day I was exceeding the speed limit, i could have sat here and defended myself with "we all do it" or "37 isnt that fast really...." etc, but that is a 'cop out' those of you who jumped onto you really high horses and chastised me had every right too.........you obviously never ever exceed the 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 mph limits ever, more power to your elbows

hedgehog

They often "enhance" one of the photos to ensure the reg can be read. It is a common practise and, that I know of, has never been challenged successfully. I suspect, therefore, that this is not the route you want to go. Apart from anything else you would be setting precident and the CPS, if they lost, would almost certainly want to fight such a case in a higher court which = ££££££ for you and you would almost certainly lose in the long run.

However, the Gatso MUST take 2 photos and, in theory, a policeman must calculate the time difference between these photos using the white lines on the road. So, you can ask to be sent both photos so you can independently verify your speed using the white lines on the road. One chap, who was being done for 54 in a 30, did this to find that his actual speed was 13mph at the time the photo was taken! With this in mind it is worth doing not just to delay them but also because it is not uncommon for them to be incorrect in their speed reading.

There seems to be no standard distance between the white lines but the photos will probably be 0.5 sec apart and you can always go back and measure the white lines. You could confirm this with the scamers, or even request this as part of the information you need to prepare your defence.

Either way it is still possible that you have at least a very good chance of delaying the court hearing by requesting all the evidence. Tell them that you need both photos from the Gatso to verify your speed at the time of the incident as you are pleading not guilty. If that tactic gets you beyond the points expiring without an appearance then you could always change your plea and save the cost of the brief.

What ever you do get a brief who either specialises in this type of work or at least has a background in motoring law. If you do so my money is still on your being able to avoid a ban.

imlach

I like to think I was just trying to question the deterrent effect of the 12pt totting up procedure.....ie, does it have a deterrent effect? It does in your case as you say you were driving like a granny, but had an unlucky night. However, utlimately, does that mean effectively it had no deterrent? ie, you got caught out in the end.

I was trying my best not to chastise (although the thread did take on a general speeding slant with ajm, not part of the original thread really).

imlach

No, I don't stick to limits all the time either, but I have zero points on my licence. If I had 9 pts, I'd probably be more careful, but we're all human I suppose....some have the willpower, some don't. Saying that, I was out to Ikea yesterday, and can honestly say I didn't go over any of the limits I encountered....dunno why, just seemed quite happy doing 30 in the 30 zones.

hedgehog

Even sticking the the limits is becoming increasingly more difficult as the scamera partnerships try to open up new revenue streams. It is not uncommon to see dual carriageways suddenly take on a 30mph limit and gain a camera, for example. These tactics are nothing short of entrappment and persecution of motorists and for that reason alone we have to fight them as best we can. It was Flaminsmart yesterday, it could be any of us tomorrow.

Recent research has shown that when a camera is placed at a junction the average motorist with spend 5 out of the 8 seconds it takes to cross that junction watching his speedo. So, a quick pop quiz: what is more dangerous (a) exceeding the speed limit slightly as Flaminsmart did, and remember he doesn't report having any accidents despite it being alledged that he has done it 4 times now. OR (b) Driving around with your eyes closed for 50 percent of the time.

The truth is, as they say, out there. The counties with the most cameras are starting to see significant rises in fatalities on their roads. Durham, where there are no cameras, is seeing significantly fewer accidents than any other county.

:eek:

Happy to travel within the set limits and always tend to.......however i would be lying (and I'd have a clean licence) if i did not admit that, when time and traffic allow i do exceed the limits......not stupidly, not by 20 or 30 mph, but certainly by 5 or 10. The road the offence took place on is in the middle of nowhere, is not a residential area (just outside one), is not an accident blackspot (according to local knowledge) and it was 23:00 on a sunday......

Going back to my traffic allowing statement.....the A40 into and out of london has a 40 mile an hour limit.....I ADHERE TO THIS LIMIT RELIGIOUSLY.....and when travelling it am always passed by everyother road user and sometimes flashed, honked at by people who have to overtake me !!
I have on occasions almost been the cause of accidents on this road where people have had to overtake me and have not judged the speed of other road users coming up behind them.........

Bottom line i was speeding in a restricted area and am going to have to suffer the consequences.......again a good discussion, some valid points and more importantly no name calling or baiting......may actually rate this thread

Thanks to all.

FrenchBoy

It is an interesting point that, under some circumstances, travelling at the speed limit actually increases your exposure to danger.

Recently I was in a position whereby I was taking extra driving tuition. Part of this included motorway driving. As I was with an instructor, I adhered to the 70mph limit. We were on the motorway for about 20mins and i didnt overtake 1 vehicle. Every single vehicle on the road that day passed me.

Now despite adhering to the limit, because i'm the slowest vehicle on the road, i have to be extra vigilant and can never let my concentration lapse as so much traffic is passing me on my right. Now i wouldnt say this was dangerous per se - extra vigilance and concentration are not a bad thing - but it wasn't as relaxing or as easy to drive as when i'm 'going with the flow'.

Now I appreciate that if everyone drove at 70mph this wouldnt be a problem. But clearly they dont. That day most people were travelling around 80-85mph.
Were they driving unsafely? Were they a danger to themselves and others?

70mph was a limit introduced in the mid 1960's. I can imagine that doing 70 in most of the cars of that period must have been a pretty terrifying experience.

Nowadays, things have moved on.

Leslie

I feel sorry for you if you have been put in this position by only exceeding the limits by small amounts as you say. As someone said, it is only too easy to get caught by a strategically sited camera these days for small excesses of speed. Like you I tend to stick close to the limits but know how easy it is to get caught out even when you were not intending to deliberately flout the law.

I think the only answer now is to have a GPS camera warning system to at least remind you to check your speed at crucial times.

Les