mark.coleman

I must say I was somewhat distressed to have received one yesterday, doing 37 in a 30.

I have written to the ticket office, asking for compassion on this occasion, based on the facts that I use this road and not ignorant to the cameras on it and also the fact that with the impending birth of our first child, my head was somewhat clouded with various issues.

I'm sure, with possibly with some of you having had similar situations, that people speeding is not nessarsarily ignornace towards the laws, but simple misjudgement under certain circumstances, or just not realising that I was 7mph over the limit.

It completely wound me up last night.

I will post their response, If I get one.

Anyone else felt completely not at fault and thought about writing.

Mark

davyboy

Bad luck.

I think you have no chance at all, sorry.

I live in Northampton, and got caught speeding 37 in a 30. However you should have the opportunity to go on the Speeding workshop??

IntegraR

Just recieved my summons yesterday, after sending back the NIP admitting guilt, 50 in a 30, and know how you feel .
Im going the old Plead guilty by Post route (if poss, didnt read much of it yet), but wont be writing any letters asking for compasion, they can suck my compasionate ****.

CraigD

There's a world of difference between 37 in a 30 limit and 50 in a 30 limit. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that you thought you were doing 30!

Pete Croney

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by mark.coleman:
<B>
I have written to the ticket office, asking for compassion on this occasion, based on the facts that I use this road and not ignorant to the cameras on it and also the fact that with the impending birth of our first child, my head was somewhat clouded with various issues.

Mark[/quote]


Saying that you were concentrating fully on the road ahead, but inadvertantly allowed your speed to creep up, may be better than saying you were mentally somewhere else

blp

Sorry mate...its a bummer, but I bet you will pay attention to that 30mph sign from now on. What does the current advert say? The difference between 35 and 30 mph is 21 feet? 30 zones are there because people and kids are around. Try this. Drive into 30 zones so that your car is doing bang on (or less) the 30 limit exactly as you get to the sign. Takes a bit of skill. The other side of the coin, is that if the worst should happen to one of your kids, and the bloke was doing 37, and then said that his head was clouded with various issues, your comment would be.........?
Sorry.

whip

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR><B>The difference between 35 and 30 mph is 21 feet?[/quote]

I personally think this figure is a load of cr4p, and is highly misleading. Maybe 21 feet extra stopping distance if you lock up the wheels like the to55er in the advert, but with a modern car using ABS? I don't think so...

Lushman

Sorry to hear that,
I tried saying I was concentrating on the road and got fined £40 and 3 point for 39 in a 30 Zone.. I was even more pissed off to see the officer who stopped watching cars go by that were going alot quicker than me and the limit had changed only a month beforehand from 40 down to 30.

What were the road conditions like, if there were not many cars on the road and similar few or none pedestrians you may be able to use this in an act of sympathy although I will NOT guarantee it will work.


[This message has been edited by Lushman (edited 13 September 2001).]

Veracocha

Good point, I hate that advert. It places absolutely no responsibility on the person in the <I>ROAD</I>. With cars that stop like ours you can literally stop in half the distance that these clueless w@nkers claim.

I find it staggering that people are fined for doing 37 in a 30.

Type R,

It is better to go to court rather than recieve your judgement by mail. You always get a lighter punishment by making an appearance.

mark.coleman

CraigD, It said I was doing 37, not 30, Pete, I didn't actually say my head was in the clouds in the letter, It was just an example.

There should be some sort of cautionary period, OK, advise us of what we have done and warn future speed issues within a 6mth period will cause prosecution.

This argument has many areas of rights and wrongs.

Mark

CraigD

mark.coleman, my opinion was aimed at IntegraR

steve McCulloch

You wanna be caught doing 78 in a 70, on the motorway!

I thought they were taking the **** - but they took it very seriously. Since then I am very careful - drive much faster - but not in the dark.....

I put it down to having a red car and they were doing well on their snooker break and did'nt want to stop the break tally.....

Plus a laserjammer helps me feel a bit safer from those attacks that I would'nt otherwise have much of a defence for...

IntegraR

Veracocha, I always thought you should just admit guilt by post, or they could view the case even more negatively for wasting courts time.

I dont mind going to court, but its a bit out of the way, Ill need to travel to Leicester, so take a day off work, and all that petrol money could be better spent on a Geodesy or something.
Ive sure learnt my lesson, phew, the law has sure shown me, I dont mean Ill stop speeding, I mean its taught me that its fine to speed, just get all the detection you can.

Hey, as long as the cops can speed legally when on "official business" (ie, "We've got a code red, MacDonalds have just reported they are down to their last dohnut, go go go!!!!"), and Mr Straw is above the law, I recon they can stuff their laws, no way that it should apply to everyone except the people making them.


Sorry if that sounds confrontational, I dont hair around like a mad thing, anyone at the old Queues meets could tell you that, Im really careful when needs be, and no, I cant predict everything, but I have honestly never to this day been the cause of an accident, and this is my first speeding ticket in over 10 years of driving.

Disco

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by mark.coleman:
<B>There should be some sort of cautionary period, OK, advise us of what we have done and warn future speed issues within a 6mth period will cause prosecution.

Mark[/quote]


I kinda agree with you on this point, theives, muggers and other smalltime hoodlums get similar leniency. Although speeding in built up areas is dangerous, it may be just as effective to warn speeding motorists as it is to fine them and penalise their liscences.

ANDY330

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Veracocha:
<B>With cars that stop like ours you can literally stop in half the distance that these clueless w@nkers claim.[/quote]

I know what you are saying but in fairness to the guys on the advert, they do state that the distance is that of an average family saloon car, although it is in small writing so that us cockey performance car drivers dont think its ok for us to go faster knowing we can stop quicker

john&nicci

I would't mind if the police stopped and fined you, but I was followed for 9.5 miles one dark and rainy morning. Talk about miffed when he finally put the blues on!!!
The tw@t had been on full beam all the way, so I COULDN'T ID him!
It was 5:30 am, and he was the only other car on the road.
82 in a 70= 3pts+£240
Best of luck with your's!

IntegraR

Yeah, and the fact that speeds havent decreased on the roads, and more tickets are being issued, seems to indicate that camera's arent working.
Well, they are working in the sense that they catch people, but they arent deterring people from speeding, possibly just moving the speeding to somewhere else.

This is even more worrying, because most camera's are on roads where exceeding the speed limit isnt that dangerous, whereas if speeders are going to smaller roads to speed, it means speeding will become more aparent in areas where it isnt as safe.

Everyone goes above the limit sometimes, whether intentionally or not, even the people who make those adverts, its a case of getting caught is all, and they stand there telling us all how terrible we are for doing it, but have probably crept above the posted limit a number of times.

Lushman

John&Nicci,

What can I say but that's Hampshire Constabulary for you. That's where I got stopped.
They are more against drivers than criminals in that area. I hated the them so Much I moved away.
Personally, I like Southampton and Hampshire I just hate those obnoxious young policeman who will try almost anything to get a promotion.

Octane Man

I'm relieved now, I've been waiting for 2 weeks after passing one of the Safety camera vans with a Plod hidden in the back.

I was doing 80mph on a 60mph stretch, I saw him at last minute and lost 15mph instantly and also woke up my Girlfriend who wasn't impressed.

It's now been 18 days since the day in question and I've not received an NIP, you have to receive it within 14 days of the alleged offence.



O.M.

Mike Rainbird

Don't get me started on THAT advert...

If they wanted to avoid hitting that child, then they shouldn't have disconnected the rear brakes - would have made the car stop a LOT more quickly....

Also it would appear that the driver was braking WELL before he made impact, so why didn't he take some sort of evasive action, cadence brake, stear to the left, sound the horn do ANYTHING? I know it is slowed down dramatically, but in doing so it allows you to see why the car hit the child and it had very little to do with speed.

This advert was made for people who know nothing and believe everything they see. I hate it and think we should all complain to the advertising standards to get it banned for wrongful advertising (as in the brakes on the rear are disconnected).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the speeding issue in built up areas, but just can't stand the fact of how sensationalistically misleading that advert is.

I'll get off my soapbox....

C h a z

I've just sent off all my details to the court for the small matter of pulling away from an unmarked car, I got done for 107mph in a 70mph limit. I will let you know how I get on.
Whats the thing that you are supposed to receive before 14 days?

Ian E

iTrader: (1)

Chaz,

I think its a NIP (Notice Of Intended Prosecution) that you're supposed to receive within 14 days. HOWEVER if you're stopped at the scene they can just give you a verbal NIP.....like I got

Good Luck,

Ian.

Gastro

Mark,

Sorry to hear it. Although I dont think you will avoid the points - I recently posted the result of a friend who ended up going to court for a 37 in a 30 with no real excuse at all (he forgot to send off the fine!) - and got the fine reduced to £30 and points removed........... It might be worth doing just that with a compassionate plea........

Good luck,

Gastro

TimBuk 2

check out the excellent

Nate-old

Did anyone see where a traffic cop sent his mitigation (?) statement back to the speeding office saying he didn't know who was driving at the time of the offence , I think he got away with it .
I have heard that if you honestly don't know who was driving at the EXACT time your vehicle is caught , that no-one can be fined , not sure but thinking about it logically , if they can't pin it down to one person..... What can they do ?

Nate

sasman

They give fine, points, to the registered owner you don't get off, that is unless you a lying COPPER.

mark.coleman

Following on, on this shambles of a subject. I cannot understand the moral cause of placing speed cameras in areas, where:-

1. The traffic on a particular stretch of road continues quite freely most of the time, they suddenly assign this a speeding area because of one idiot in ten thousand cars who has caused an accident

2. People have, over the years continued to travel over the speed limit on a certain roads, suddenly, after some reports, place a camera there, to which they start hammering on the brakes and cause accidents.

Every morning I see a plonker come steaming down a main road, OK, it's 05:15 at about 60mph, this is a built up area.

Most speed cameras seem to be placed just after the god damn restriction. On roads that people have driven over the speed limit for years, that have less accidents than rubber necking. They'll be putting these thing in driveways soon.

I have also read that child accidents are down due to the implementation of these, well they bloody would be, I don't know anyone who crosses a dual carriageway, motorway to get to their destination.

The reports seem to generalise information that people need to see and not the whole story.

End of rant for timebeing.

neveryoumind

Just send the fine off and take it on the chin.
The fact is you were doing 37 in a 30 zone. The law isn't ambiguous at all. You should have been doing a maximum of thirty.
You were breaking the law.
It won't affect your insurance, and any amount of bleating won't affect the outcome of all these other people quoted as getting let off.

Steve001

iTrader: (7)

Sorry Mark to here about your fine!

You must have been very unlucky as that most police officers work on a (unofficial) 10%+2 margin, 'good will' I think they call it! yeh right....

Another thought is that most speedo's read about 5-10% over so in fact you could have been doing in excess of 40!! on your clock?

As to someone mentioning an officer 'stopwatching' cars an getting stopped for going just a few mph over, I myself would have contested this as it must be the most inaccurate way of clocking speed, I would like to put money on anyone getting the actual speed correct EVERY time using this method. I know that over a long distance this is ok, but if he times you over a couple of hundred yards??????

mark.coleman

I'm sure that, as well as other people may agree that there is too much emphasis put on "you were breaking the law", there's no confidence even with people going to court these days based on the facts whether the speeding was intentional or not. If I feel strongly about something, I'll fight it, I have my morals. Speeding motorists, these days are found guilty fullstop.........