**Disclaimer - this is not me (been said a thousand times, SIAL, yeah yeah yeah), this is a colleague at work who has been caught speeding and faces a totting up ban**


A colleauge was driving at 47 in a 60 in thick fog. 47 in a 60 is what he deemed to be a safe speed for the conditions. The 60 went to a 40 zone, and there was a Truvelo sitting there a mere 100m after the speed limit had changed (from 60 to 40). So, he was caught doing 47 in a 40.

History can prove there was thick fog on the day.

My question is, can this be used as a defence in court? He did not see that the speed limit had changed (I believe him to). Could it be deemed as a mitigating circumstance and actually assist in "getting off" the conviction??

I've googled it but nothing.

Thank you.

 

if he couldn't see the sign then 47 must have been too fast for the conditions.

 

lol...good luck. speeding because the visability was too poor to see a sign at the road side

 

could he not say his brakes had failed and he wanted to get home before he had a crash?

As jjones says - if he couldn't see the sign then it must have been way to foggy to be driving at 47?

 

So they could shaft him for driving without due care and intention as well?? lol. Never rains it poors!

His argument was that he was concentrating on the road, and traffic coming in the other direction, glare etc etc. He couldn't see the 40mph sign due to the thick fog. The Truvelo was literally 100m after the sign, well before the 'A Road' changed into a village high street. The geographics of the road had not changed in any way. Only is it clear that it becoms a village after another several hundred metres.

Are you saying that he has no case? Or is this merely your opinion?

P.S. If you can't see a sign at 47 due to fog you won't be able to see the sign at 30. Speed doesn't affect visibility.....visibility affects visibilty.

 

Thats a fair point

 

I'm playing devils advocate here.....

If you can't see a sign at 47 due to fog you won't be able to see the sign at 30. Speed doesn't affect visibility.....visibility affects visibilty.

 

Sure - but if you have visibility of 30 feet, you're passing through any given 30 foot section at a lower speed giving you more time to spot things and more time to perform the rest of the observations you should be performing.

Too many people press on in the fog by concentrating soley on the road in front and ignoring their other observations. In poor visibility good all round observation is even more essential!

 

I agree with your 2nd statement in it's entirety. Though he was doing 47 in a 60 which he considered to be acceptable.

However, your first statement. If we work on this premise, are you suggesting that if you are doing 47 in a 30 "and can't see the sign" that means you are driving too fast for the conditions, right?? Now, if you are doing 47 in a 60 - you still won't be able to see the 60 sign (a sign is a sign), so, does that mean that 47 in a 60 is ALSO too fast for the conditions? (as you cannot see te 60 sign).

Hope that made sense...

 

Ridiculous defence

 

if he goes to court with this defence can you tell me where & when as i would love to see the magistrates faces.

Up sh1te creek without a paddle I recon with that one.

Best look at Peppipoo (sp?) & try to work out a better plan of defence

 

I thought about it, and put myself in his position. Doing 47 in a 60, driving what he deemed to be safely.Then, SNAP-SNAP of a Truvelo? You think WTF????? Then you notice that you have been in a village for the last 200m.

Granted, it'd have to be VERY thick fog - but it is conceivable, even to those which are perfect amongst us....

 

On a normal width A road you should be passing less than 20 ft from the speed limit sign. If you can't see a sign 20ft away, then neither can you see the articulated lorry 20 ft in front of you which has crashed into the car which braked for the speed camera. Even if it is a 60 zone, the speed limit is a maximum speed instead of a safe speed. If you are driving at 47 MPH in less than 20ft visibility, you wont even have time to hit the brakes before you hit the lorry, so in my opinion I would say that 47 is too fast for the conditions. Even 20 mph in 20ft visibility wont give you time to stop

 

Don't think he would have a cat's chance with that line of defence.

Les

 

Would he not be better denying that he was doing 47 in a 40, and using the fact that the heavy fog has distorted the reading of the operators equipment. (severe weather conditions have been proven to affect readings)

 

That I agree with.

Nice one, I think the thread has concluded - he's foocked!! Oh well, no more car sharing for me then. Damn, more expense on petrol!! Though come to think of it, no, I'l get him to pay my petrol and I'll take his speeding *** to work!!

 

Thick fog means that whether the max limit was 60, 30 or 20 is absolutely redundant. The max limit is a max, not recommended, and absolutely not applicable in the conditions. It's a red herring.

 

It was a truvelo - no real defense of guilt.

 

God I wish more people were aware of this!!!!

In summary, 47 was too fast in the 60 let alone in the 40.

 

He might be able to keep his licence if you go to court with him and tell them that him losing his licence would cause you and your wife and kids and granny and cat unnecessary hardship cos you would have to spend more on petrol

 

As stated above......."History can prove there was thick fog on the day"
Does the thickness of the fog show on the photo.Has he seen them.
I agree with most on here that "your friend" was probably driving too fast for the conditions.
However doesn't any road sign stating (s)cameras are being used have to be visible for at least 100m from the (s)camera. I'm not sure on this.
If it was the case though and the fog was really thick, even though "your mate" was going perhaps too fast for the conditions, if he couldn't see the sign through the fog, by the letter of the law couldn't it be used as a defence. At least give it a go. He could've been parked by the side of the road and still not seen the sign.
At what speed can the Police consider you're driving too fast for the conditions in fog on any given foggy day at any given time. Surely they can't just make it up and decide themselves. They haven't got fogometers to guage the thickness of the fog.
I don't think the Police could prosecute for driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving because they can't go back at a specific point in time at a certain location and state exactly how thick the fog was. If you didn't see the change of speed limit sign due to the fog then you can state that you considered 47 in what you considered to still be a 60 limit a safe speed to drive at.Bit of a catch 22 though.
Maybe "your mate" can force all the road signs to be illuminated in bad weather if the courts want their scamera money.
Do some research on

 

Alg - I can assure that this is indeed a work colleague that I car share with and not me. I was already banned when he got caught! lol.

 

Just having a laugh BigMan.
Bit of a tricky problem though.
He needs that bloke that got Alex Ferguson off speeding because he had the ****s. (no, not Man Utd, a dodgy tum.)lol

 

I heard the solicitor got someone off before cos one of the witnesses had a mint in his mouth in court!!!!

 

Average case cost £10k. Is his licence worth that much?

 

Nope!!

 

I think it was a copper who was chewing gum in court.
In front of the Judge the solicitor asked him if he was chewing and he denied it.
It was obviously just a knee jerk answer to the question, but it proved
1/that he wasn't a totally honest copper.
2/ some coppers are as thick as some of them look.

 

Brilliant, instant reaction to lie - the lie got him in the ****, not the actual act of chewing the gum.

Brilliant.

 

Indeed - which suggests he was driving at a speed appropriate for the conditions. If you can't come to a stop safely on your side of the road in the space you know to be clear, you're driving too fast. If you can't see a sign a few feet off to the side of the road, do you think he could have stopped the car in that same distance from 47mph?

 

Err...

Post 16 Olly.