[Closed] Any speeding prosecution experts

I understand the overriding purpose of the criminal law is to convict the guilty and aquit the innocent. It is the duty of all parties to assist the court in this and identify the real issues in the case. So when you go to court and say "i was speeding but the grid reference is wrong " the prosecution will correct the charge. If you say nothing and go to trial and wait till the close of the prosecution case before pointing out your error then the prosecution will apply to reopen their case and amend the charge.

It really is not a silly game anymore.

I understand the overriding purpose of the criminal law...

Is a speeding ticket actually a question of criminal law? (That's a genuine question).

Konabunny the answer is yes

Tom B - Member

I'm a speeding expert-i don't speed. In 9 years and 160k miles i've never been prosecuted for speeding. Go figure....

I've never been prosecuted for anything either, because I've never broken any laws, especially speed limits.
😆 😆 😆

🙄

Tom B - Member

Cheers bren. I'm no expert but don't almost all speedos read about 10% under actual speed. So your 79mph from the police would have been showing over 85 on your speedo?

Common misconception.
They cannot under-read, but the accuracy varies a lot between different marques. I've had cars that read 1mph over all the way from 0-140mph, and others at the other end of the spectrum, 110% + 6.25mph.

Judging by the example cited, I think "under" was a typo there.

Back to the original point of

Any speeding prosecution experts

Apparently the forum is full of them. 😀

BenHouldsworth - Member

Igrf, these things don't trigger if your under the speed limit so tough s**t, if your 32 in 30 then sorry but trying to blag it is no better than the whiplash folk who drive insurance up, just be responsible

He was caught by a van, which will contain a speed camera triggered by a human operator, and they are not infallible.
How you can equate driving above the speed limit, an offence that requires no victim with fraud that affects millions is quite puzzling.

davidjones15 - Member

Didn't it used to be 30mph over for the automatic ban?

There has never been a speed that led to an automatic ban.

dannyh - Member

There are two people at my work who have been whingeing recently about being caught speeding and the 'inconvenience' of it all. Try telling that to the family of someone who has been killed by a speeding driver.

Do you have any idea how many people are killed each year, by a car driver, because they were speeding?

There has never been a speed that led to an automatic ban.

What I meant was putting you in a higher risk of having a ban. Technicalities, eh? 🙄

PeterPoddy - Member

If you are getting tickets its for a reason.

Yep. Poor observation.

So you can spot a camera hidden in an unmarked trailer from 1,000m away, can you?
No, no you can't.

davidjones15 - Member

What I meant was putting you in a higher risk of having a ban. Technicalities, eh? 🙄

You asked a question so I answered it, no need to be a cock about it. 🙄

You asked a question so I answered it, no need to be a cock about it.

Bless. 😆

FeeFoo - Member

Morally : accept the fine and points.
Selfishly : weasel out of it if you can

This is something I have never understood.
If you accept what you are doing is morally wrong and would therefore "take it on the chin" as many posters have written, then why do it in the first place?
Is that not worse than someone who tries to avoid conviction for a victimless crime they do not agree with? 💡

Meanwhile, getting back on topic...

OP: unless you have large funds to spare there is little chance of gaining anything by taking this to court, other than an increased fine and costs.
As Kenny Senior states, the minor inaccuracy of the van's location would not be enough to get this thrown out.

Do you have any idea how many people are killed each year, by a car driver, because they were speeding?

[i]Because [/i]they were speeding, or [i]whilst [/i]they were speeding?

I for one don't know how many people are killed each year [i]because [/i]drivers are speeding. How many?

What I meant was putting you in a higher risk of having a ban.

I believe the term you're looking for is "eligible for disqualification". I think this is something like ~45% of the posted speed. 50 in a 30, 100 in a 70, and such. Ish.

Ah, here.

http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingban/speedingoffences/drivingbanspeedingoffences.htm#I_have_been_caught_speeding._Is_an_instant_driving_ban_likely

Limit. | Speed Alleged.
-------+---------------------
30 mph | In excess of 51 mph
40 mph | In excess of 66 mph
50 mph | In excess of 75 mph
60 mph | In excess of 85 mph
70 mph | In excess of 100 mph

I believe the term you're looking for is "eligible for disqualification"

Whatever the term is, I was generalising a bit. Interesting how some folk require precise language on one hand but are prepared to be less accurate when trying to get a prosecution, innit pc sbob? 😉

He he, if its not people trying to weasel out of speeding tickets

Then its people trying to weasel out of a really specific statement such as "automatic ban" by saying they were "generalising"

😉

davidjones15 - Member

Whatever the term is, I was generalising a bit. Interesting how some folk require precise language on one hand but are prepared to be less accurate when trying to get a prosecution, innit pc sbob? 😉

You asked question.
I answered it.
You get the hump.
I suggest there's no need.
You start winking at me.

Either you're using some strange masonic greeting that I know nothing about, or you're simple/trying not to lose face.

Equally confused either way tbh. 😕

Great late entry for "high horses of the year" thread guys!

You asked question.
I answered it.
You get the hump.
I suggest there's no need.
You start winking at me

You've pulled!!!!
Your superior wit and wisdom has won you the chance of internet sex with a total stranger.

RESULT!!

RESULT!!

If it's got tits, I'm in! 😀

really?
[img] [/img]

oh sorry, you said [b]got[/b] not [b]is a [/b]

really?

Scroll down 'til his head is off the page.
That's how I imagine most STWers to look like. 😈

ETA: you ruined it!

If you accept what you are doing is morally wrong and would therefore "take it on the chin" as many posters have written, then why do it in the first place?

Breaking speed limit, but not being caught by cameras = driving with due care and attention. Not seeing cameras = driving without due care and attention.
Or something along those lines 😀

cougar - I believe the term you're looking for is "eligible for disqualification". I think this is something like ~45% of the posted speed.

Well if you want to be pedantic discressionary disqualification can be applied at any speed.

Well, yes, that's what discretionary means. Not immediately sure when they'd apply that though, perhaps if there are other factors than just speeding involved?

"eligible for disqualification" implies that you [i]will[/i] be disqualified, unless there are mitigating circumstances to prevent this. Eg you'll lose your job if you can't drive, and so there's therefore "unnecessary hardship."

Incidentally, you appear to be confusing "pedantic" with "correct."

Do you have any idea how many people are killed each year, by a car driver, because they were speeding?

Yes none. Speed has never killed a single person in the history of time. What kills people is too rapid a rate of deceleration. The human body reguarly travels faster than the speed of sound with no ill effects.

What causes traffic accidents is 2 objects occupying the same space at the same time. There are lots of reasons why that happens, usually around misjudgement by one, some or all of the people involved.

Genuine question on morality here, if you have been breaking the speed limit, is there any moral difference between trying to get off when you have been caught and not volunteering to pay a fine when you haven't been caught? 😕

Do you have any idea how many people are killed each year, by a car driver, because they were speeding?

Yes none. Speed has never killed a single person in the history of time. What kills people is too rapid a rate of deceleration. The human body reguarly travels faster than the speed of sound with no ill effects.

Not sure if you have done it deliberately, but you have misunderstood the question you commented on.

To word it another way.

How many people (cyclists/pedestrians/horse riders/other motorists) every year are killed by Car Drivers that are speeding ?

Cougar - Member
Ok, I was curious, so I googled it.

Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (Russian: ?????? ????????????? ???????; IPA: [m??x??il ?ba?kun?in]) (30 May [O.S. 18 May] 1814 – 1 July 1876) was a Russian revolutionary, philosopher, and theorist of collectivist anarchism. He has also often been called the father of anarchist theory in general.

You're barking, and I'm not talking to you any more.

I wouldn't say 'barking'. I would say just someone who plays by the rules most of the time, will accept any consequences of not doing so, and gets a bit pissed off when others pick and choose what rules they think they ought to follow AND get all humpty when they get caught.

Your quote agreeing that the legal system is just a game of cat and mouse with draconian authorities would not mark you down as someone with a great deal of respect for authority.

It's alright anyway - I don't want to talk to you either.

nealglover - Member
To word it another way.

Nearly.
I suppose I should have said "in how many fatal RTAs is speed recorded as the primary cause".
Then I would have avoided chrismac's Jeremy Clarkson quote, which would have been nice as it was a lot less funny this time round.

Incidentally, you appear to be confusing "pedantic" with "correct."

Another for my Teeshirt collection ! 🙂

Many thanks.

To word it another way.

How many people (cyclists/pedestrians/horse riders/other motorists) every year are killed by Car Drivers that are speeding ?

That's not wording it another way, it's a different question.

The first question implies a causal link, your second does not. You might as well ask how many people are killed by drivers wearing green jumpers.

Another for my Teeshirt collection

We aim to please. (-:

It's alright anyway - I don't want to talk to you either.

So long as you get the last word though, eh? 😉

Your quote agreeing that the legal system is just a game of cat and mouse with draconian authorities would not mark you down as someone with a great deal of respect for authority.

"The legal system" and "authority" are different things.

Legal process places high value on procedure, technical accuracy, and precedence. Without correct procedure, the process fails. It has to, otherwise we'd get situations where there's no real evidence but people get convicted regardless because "well, we know he's guilty, really."

Wholly unrelated to any respect for authority or lack thereof. I have no beef with authority, my given respect would only be questioned if none was afforded to me.

You're barking, and I'm not talking to you any more.

I wasn't being wholly serious, y'know.

someone who plays by the rules most of the time, will accept any consequences of not doing so, and gets a bit pissed off when others pick and choose what rules they think they ought to follow AND get all humpty when they get caught.

I don't think the OP ever got 'humpty', or any of the other Play School toys. But regardless. The angle I was pursuing wasn't "how to avoid consequences" so much as questioning how much faith you can have in a NIP which has mistakes on it, which I think is more or less what the OP was asking.

Cougar, I was re phrasing the question, intending to simplify it for whoever it was that wrote this

Yes none. Speed has never killed a single person in the history of time. What kills people is too rapid a rate of deceleration. The human body reguarly travels faster than the speed of sound with no ill effects.

As he clearly "misunderstood" the question in his rush to quote Clarkson.
the effect a speeding car can have on pedestrians - They are not normally killed by "too rapid a rate of deceleration"

I see what you mean about the change in implied causality, and that wasn't intentional.

<nods>

TBH, I read the 'deceleration' comment (is it attributable to Clarkson?) to be an attempt at humour. If serious, it's less 'misunderstood' and more 'bizarre'. (-:

Well, yes, that's what discretionary means. Not immediately sure when they'd apply that though, perhaps if there are other factors than just speeding involved?

It will apply in any circumstances where the sentencing Judge deems it appropriate. It might, for example, apply at less than 45% over the speed limit if the circumstances of the offence made the speeding more serious, e.g. in particularly bad weather, close to a school with lots of pedestrians milling about etc. Since previous offences are also taken into account, if someone has a long history of speeding and doesn't seem to have learned it might also be appropriate to ban rather than wait for totting up to come into play. Another common circumstance when discretionary disqual is used at speeds you might not expect it is when the accused (or more likely their lawyer) asks for it. Why would they do that? Imagine you are on 9 points. You are facing another 3, and then a consequential totting up ban for 6 months. You might suggest a 1 month ban and financial penalty would be better. Whether the sentencing judge goes for it is a matter for his (or her) personal discretion. Some do, some don't.

"eligible for disqualification" implies that you will be disqualified, unless there are mitigating circumstances to prevent this.

no it doesn't, it implies you eligible for disqualification; all speeding offences are "Eligible for Disqualification". There is no automatic assumption of a ban by magistrates even at very high speeds (although it is a likely outcome). p131 contains the sentencing [b]guidelines[/b] for first time offenders, in the English and Welsh Magistrates' Courts:

Eg you'll lose your job if you can't drive, and so there's therefore "unnecessary hardship."

Exceptional hardship (to be pedantic/correct in the terminology!) applies in totting up cases. IIRC it does not apply in discretionary disqualification cases. If the sentencing judge deems your offence serious enough to warrant a period of discretionary disqualification, you can't argue that it will cause exceptional hardship. Oh, and generally simply losing your job is not enough to prove exceptional hardship.

Incidentally, you appear to be confusing "pedantic" with "correct."

no, you appear to have confused inaccurate with correct.

So you can spot a camera hidden in an unmarked trailer from 1,000m away, can you?
No, no you can't.

Don't need to. Several reasons.

The roads I go fast on font have that much line of sight
My satnav warns me where all the speed camera sites are
Vans are all marked these days

See, smartarse, observation is a bit more than 'looking for a van' in case you didn't know. 🙂

The people that get caught are the ones that speed all the time in obvious places like motorways and in town. That's where the cameras are. The get blasé and sloppy. Me, I'm quite happy dribbling. Along the motorway at 65 in the car. Never ever gonna get caught like that am I? In town, what's the rush? You'll fe behind the same car at the lights anyway
Also, years on motorcycles have taught me restraint. I know cars are slow so I don't bother in them. All I have to do is bide my time before I get on the bike, and when I do I simply wait until there's nobody around.... 🙂

It might, for example, apply at less than 45% over the speed limit if the circumstances of the offence made the speeding more serious, e.g. in particularly bad weather, close to a school with lots of pedestrians milling about etc.

... which is what I said. ".... if there are other factors than just speeding involved? "

There is no automatic assumption of a ban by magistrates even at very high speeds

I sit corrected.

If the sentencing judge deems your offence serious enough to warrant a period of discretionary disqualification, you can't argue that it will cause exceptional hardship.

... and again, assuming that to be correct. I didn't think it was the case, but don't know 100%.

PeterPoddy - Member

Vans are all marked these days

smartarse

No they aren't.
Enjoy your extra large portion of wrong. 😀

I agree with a lot of what you say, but with your level of naivety all I can say is stay out of Wales. 😉