Forum menu
Did you read my post? I’ve already answered both of these.
Of course not, this is the internet! 😉
You're right though, I should have said "rarely" rather than "never".
But you’ll never hear
“Ah, but speedos are out by 5-10mph so I always drive an indicated 10mph under the limit”.
I have, someone on here actually. They were rather proud of the fact they drive at 50mph on a motorway because they were within 10mph of the speed differential, totally ignoring the upper speed limit.
Why not call an ambulance?
Granted this is likely geography-dependent,
Round here you're just as likely to have a firefighter sent to your house if the ambulances are busy. We're not really out in the sticks that much so yeah, I'd be foot to the floor in that situation.
Why not call an ambulance?
Let me guess, you live in a town? If you’re 15 miles out in the countryside and the contractions are coming every minute…
It was just an example. The offence is committed, but there can be mitigation of the sentence. That’s all. Oh and they will check the facts, so there had better be a newborn. You’ll keep your licence due to the needs of the mother and newborn.
Mrs TiRed has seen every excuse. Seeing it close up, I can only say follow Rule 1 for the best outcome. That might be a ban, but following the rule may mitigate the severity.
If you’re 15 miles out in the countryside and the contractions are coming every minute…
Is the hospital then not further away than an ambulance?
Of course it's an example, I get that. I was just questioning the validity of "I was caught speeding because..." when there's probably better options. If the argument was "I rang for an ambulance and they said they were 45 minutes away so I jumped in my car and... " then you'd have a better example.
But really, this is why the entire system is shit, in a generation we've replaced expensive police who could be dealing with any number of potential crimes, with revenue earning cameras. There are relatively few to no police on the roads or in society generally, the 'beat' is a near-dead concept. There's no provision for judgement calls, no "I'm really sorry officer but my wife is in contractions and my passenger footwell is full of bodily fluids." Time was, that sort of situation would've earned you a blues & twos police escort rather than flash-flash sixty quid and three points. It's braindead.
Is the hospital then not further away than an ambulance?
Of course it’s an example, I get that. I was just questioning the validity of “I was caught speeding because…” when there’s probably better options. If the argument was “I rang for an ambulance and they said they were 45 minutes away so I jumped in my car and… ” then you’d have a better example.
That's why we have JPs to sit and assess the credibility of any mitigation (or indeed defence) rather than computerised systems. Sentencing would be much more swift/efficient and certainly more consistent if you just filled in a webform with your earnings and it applied a calculation based on speed/limit/income. But there would be no justice for the small number of people who genuinely have a reasonable argument. Mitigation is not an all or nothing situation, if you said (and can back it up):
- my wife has symptoms of a heart attack, I dialled 999 and was told likely to be 45 minutes for an ambulance, but I only live 20 mins from A&E (15 when speeding), and you have some evidence from ambulance service and or phone provider of a call, and something from the hospital backing up the symptoms you would have a potential defence, or the possibility of an absolute discharge if found guilty. Indeed you'd hope that presented with all those facts the crown would drop the case.
- my wife was in labour and the midwife said to come as soon as possible, and the contractions were getting closer, I was in a very rural area 90 minutes from the hospital and you show a birth certificate, you will probably struggle with a defence - but you would probably have a good argument for special reasons for not getting any points (which usually = no fine).
- my 6yr old daughter broke her arm at school and I was rushing to meet her at the hospital. You might get some sympathy and maybe slightly fewer points / lower fine.
- my 16 yr old daughter was feeling sick at school and I was rushing to pick her up. You probably aren't going away much better off.
Every case is different and based on the nuances of the case so hypothetical mitigation is pointless.
But really, this is why the entire system is shit, in a generation we’ve replaced expensive police who could be dealing with any number of potential crimes, with revenue earning cameras. There are relatively few to no police on the roads or in society generally, the ‘beat’ is a near-dead concept.
I don't have any data to hand but I think the total number of cops is within 10% of 3 decades ago when speed camera's first got introduced. There has been a shift in policing though - a lot more mental health stuff, and domestic and sexual offences taken much more seriously tying up a lot of officer time. Probably doing more paperwork, more training, and more wasted time hanging around waiting for a clogged up court system to call them for evidence which was never in dispute in the first place. I think its probably wrong to get hung up on revenue-earning cameras - they cost money to run. The alternative is the law-abiding citizens pay for the police presence that might discourage the rest. There's clearly a middle ground.
There’s no provision for judgement calls, no “I’m really sorry officer but my wife is in contractions and my passenger footwell is full of bodily fluids.” Time was, that sort of situation would’ve earned you a blues & twos police escort rather than flash-flash sixty quid and three points. It’s braindead.
There's still loads of scope for judgement calls - the cops do still stop people on the roads and do exactly the sort of thing you suggest, if you trigger a camera the supervising officer at the police can still decide to show discretion (but you might need a bit more than a few words scribbled in a reply box), if the speed is not too crazy and you meet some other conditions everyone in England is offered a course rather than points/fine, if you want to defend or present strong mitigation the prosecutor can decide not to pursue right up until the day of trial, if you get to trial the bench can decide you weren't guilty, or they can discharge you absolutely, or they find special reasons not to endorse your license, or they can still give you points/fine but go lower than the guidelines. And if you are still not happy after all that you can ask the Appeal Court to reconsider the decision. That's an awful lot of possible judgement calls; if after all of those you are still not happy then maybe the judgement call of the person operating the accelerator was the wrong one?
Oh and Cougar - you must be sticking to the limits well - the fixed penalty for speeding went up from £60-100 about 10 years ago!
there would be no justice
Precisely what I'm trying to say.
Begs the question though as to whether the initial judgement call should be entrusted to a policeman, or whether each one should trouble a court. And I don't have the answer to that, the police should be trustworthy but like any other profession there's good and bad ones.
I think the total number of cops is within 10% of 3 decades ago
Without the figures you don't have to hand this is moot but, assuming it to be true, they aren't "ello ello knees bend what's all this then?" beat cops. As a small child in the 70s I was taught, if you want to know the time then ask a policeman. If I applied that logic today it'd take me till a week next Thursday to find one.
if you trigger a camera the supervising officer at the police can still decide to show discretion
Is that actually true? Are you talking about fixed Gatsos or mobile 'safety' vans or something else here?
My point, really, was that feet on the street and wheels on the road would a) be able to think above and beyond a camera and b) would be able to police way more infractions than doing 31 in a 30. A speed camera isn't going to catch someone running down the path with a knife, or the three pillocks on trials bikes with no licence plates that ripped past me the other day.
Oh and Cougar – you must be sticking to the limits well – the fixed penalty for speeding went up from £60-100 about 10 years ago!
I dunno. As a youngling I drove everywhere like I stole it, but I rarely break the speed limit these days.
The last time I got caught speeding was on the way to view a potential wedding venue, I was distracted by dint of being talked at by my excited betrothed (so Driving Without Due Care) and it was a weird not-quite-one-or-the other single carriageway. I got my collar felt for 40-odd in a 40 or 50-odd in a 50 or something. That would have been 2013 maybe?
Oh, no, wait that's not true. I got caught out a couple of years back and netted the course. One of the A-roads between here and Yorkshire where there's no passing places for miles, A56 or 59 or 65 or some such. Hit a stretch with a crawler lane and hoofed it past a tractor and a caravan, tucked back in thinking "yeah, that was probably a bit hot," looked at the speedo showing maybe 73 in a 60. The letter arrived soon after.
I'm more cross about the latter one. The first was totally justified, I simply wasn't paying attention because I was having my ear bent, I had no idea what the limit was and I screwed up. The second, the camera was totally placed not at an accident blackspot but to maximise making money.
.... but, yes, haven't had a fixed penalty in decades.
Begs the question though as to whether the initial judgement call should be entrusted to a policeman, or whether each one should trouble a court. And I don’t have the answer to that, the police should be trustworthy but like any other profession there’s good and bad ones.
It makes no sense to waste the driver's time, the police officers' time, the court's time for stuff that everyone looks at and says, "that's simply unnecessary to prosecute". Provided each person in the subsequent chain of further levels of discretion / perspective aren't simply trying to justify the original cops decision (in my experience they are not, and each are considering it on the facts before them not that someone else didn't drop it already). I can see no benefit in removing the option to drop cases before court, unless you think there are cases being dropped for spurious reasons?
As a small child in the 70s I was taught, if you want to know the time then ask a policeman. If I applied that logic today it’d take me till a week next Thursday to find one.
I appreciate its different in different parts of the country; but the police station in my town (pop. ~15K people) is "unmanned" meaning there is not necessarily anyone there and to meet a cop there you make an appointment. Nearest proper manned police station is 12 miles away. Its a relatively nice area with comparatively low levels of trouble compared to some in the "district" - I think I could be pretty confident of seeing police vans/cars multiple times a day passing through the town. I agree they are not very often on foot now, but that means if it all kicks off 10 of them can be here in 20 minutes, rather than 2.
Is that actually true? Are you talking about fixed Gatsos or mobile ‘safety’ vans or something else here?
Yes (well at least in Scotland but I believe its the same in England). A "civvi" may be dealing with the camera footage etc, but if you write back questioning a cloned plate, pointing out it was an ambulance, etc a cop looks at it (probably seargent level) and has the discretion to bin it .
My point, really, was that feet on the street and wheels on the road would a) be able to think above and beyond a camera and b) would be able to police way more infractions than doing 31 in a 30. A speed camera isn’t going to catch someone running down the path with a knife, or the three pillocks on trials bikes with no licence plates that ripped past me the other day.
I'm not disputing that, probably even worse is that some camera vans are only tasked with speed offences so you can drive past it on your phone, not wearing your seat belt and potentially get no action taken! The mistake is seeing them as either or, and I don't think the shift in policing was brought about by speed cameras, thats just an easy thing to blame.
It took DAF/Leyland several years and several court cases to finally admit the fault was theirs
That did not go where i was expecting. Not the high speed capri chopping its own roof off under a stopped lorry?
Just holding something in your hand isn’t dangerous so the law re mobile phone usage is utterly stupid. Making phone calls whilst driving is distracting and should have been banned completely.
True enough, but why else would you be holding your phone in your hand, if you were not fiddling with it. Just giving it a cuddle?
Is it down the to observer in the unmarked HGV to determine which app you were using, or whether you were talking to it on speaker or just holding it for separation anxiety? or should they just give you a ticket because you could have left it on the passenger seat?
The second, the camera was totally placed not at an accident blackspot but to maximise making money.
Yep - the Harrogate bypass often has mobile speed camera units on it and one of their favourite spots is at the top of a hill with a crawler lane - but the spot is obscured by a high-speed bend in the road – I can imagine they make a fortune out of that particular spot and I have never known there to have been an accident around there.