[Closed] Managed motorway speeding question:

I'd imagine (hope) they'd get multiple fines. It doesn't matter if the person was caught doing 100 or whatever by 5 cameras over 10 miles or 5 cameras over 60 miles?

If you don't then its a flippin weird rule.

depends on the camera system. Some systems have multiple cameras but its the time taken to travel between cameras, not the speed when passing the camera that measured. So old-school cameras would log multiple offences as triggering each camera is 'getting caught' but an average speed system would just log one.

Rhetorical would suggest you don't want an answer.

If you mean theoretically, I believe it would be 1 ticket. Morally this is wrong.

Either way you should be theoretically disgusted with yourself.

I think you can argue in court it should be 1 ticket, it does depend upon the circumstances.

Rhetorical would suggest you don't want an answer.

If you mean theoretically, I believe it would be 1 ticket. Morally this is wrong.

Either way you should be theoretically disgusted with yourself.

Now I’m just confused and embarrassed (and its too late to sedit mt OP) 😳

If the persons speed doesn’t change then they'd only be breaking the law once so how does that work for prosecuting them multiple times?

I think you can argue in court it should be 1 ticket, it does depend upon the circumstances.

Thats madness.

My lay view is that the offense is exceeding the speed limit, so if you only exceeded it once , but got caught be multiple cameras (ie exceeded the speed limit then stayed above it through several camera or speed limit zones whatever) then it should only be one offence.

Probably completely wrong in my interpretation though, would be interested in the corect answer

Didn't this happen when cameras first started appearing? I think it was on the M6. Chap effectively lost his license in a single trip. Went to court to argue it was a single offence as he didn't drop below the speed limit between cameras. No idea of the outcome though.

Thats madness.

In the old days you where stopped by the police, got a ticket. it didn;t matter of they tailed you for 1 mile or 10. Now you can get flashed by multiple cameras and get multiple tickets ?

And you'll most probably have passed multiple speed limit signs....

I believe it depends whether you think a Golf R estate is a good idea or not.....

You would hope that the circumstances would be taken into account and the punishment would suit the offence.

If I'm driving around on bald tyres, get pulled over and fined for it, then a week later get pulled over again and get another fine is that wrong? It's the same tyres, the car could have been parked on the road and so hasn't been off the road in between the fines. One offence but caught twice?

If you've broken the speed limit at two different points in time, at two different locations then I don't see why you shouldn't get two tickets. If it's two cameras looking at exactly the same but of road then that's like being fined twice because there were two officers in the car that pulled you over. The OP's question is more like two different officers, in different cars catching you on different bits of road, at two distinct times.

Pook, doesn't matter how many signs are up if you're still in the same zone. They could all be repeaters. Just to show how daft it is, you can't officially use repeaters in a 30 limit.

It's multiple offences. You could gather enough points fir a ban on one trip if you speed past enough cameras.

Why ? If you get in your car and drive 80mph up the motorway for 10 miles why is that multiple tickets versus driving at that speed for 100 yds ?

Because whats to say you didn't stop at a services and do 100mph between cameras before slowing down for the cameras? If you're idiotic enough to drive through multiple speed cameras at a speed so far above the limit it sets the cameras off, you should be punished for being a cretin more than for the simple offence of driving a car too quickly.

If the cameras were as small as possible (say they were each 1 Planck length long) and they were packed end to end, and each one took a picture as you pootled past over the speed limit for just 1 metre of road, how many points would you have 1.616 x10 to-the 35 speeding tickets translate to?

@bails - because you've had a chance to get new tyres and you've been made aware of the offense.

Why don't average speed cameras ban you outright as they prove you've been speeding for miles and miles ?

As it's automated, or rather otherwise-unemployable jobsworth lacky-enforced*, you'd probably get fined multiple times and be sent multiple NIP letters. You'd have to go to court to argue that it's one offense.

*Just to be clear they're not police officers who do the processing (in Northumbria area at least).

I think it's a day in court, all offences dealt with together, but multiple offences.

jambalaya - Member
@bails - because you've had a chance to get new tyres and you've been made aware of the offense.
Why don't average speed cameras ban you outright as they prove you've been speeding for miles and miles ?

@bails - because you've had a chance to get new tyres and you've been made aware of the offense.

How about my drive from Gatwick to Northumberland last week, if I'd been caught speeding on the M25, the M1 and the A69 should they all count as a single offence?

@scott - but whats real the difference between an average speed camera and multiple GATSOs

@lemony - I think one ticket per day or one ticket unless you have received the speeding notice in the post. So in your example 1 ticket.

You will get done for all of the offenses. You can plead hardship when in court to not get a ban.

If you get in your car and drive 80mph up the motorway for 10 miles why is that multiple tickets versus driving at that speed for 100 yds ?

Perhaps because you've endangered x100 more lives? You've been caught multiple times doing the same thing?

Example: If someone goes on a killing spree for a couple of hours, they don't just get done for murder once, they get done for each offence that could be proven.

Perhaps because you've endangered x100 more lives?

Imperial fail, you mean 176x more lives I think 🙂

If it went to court you'd only get done once unless the rules have changed, once per journey was the previous way it worked.
My mums a magistrate and this was the information they were given.
--

^ that. Although twice if you do it going home as well.

lemonysam - Member
How about my drive from Gatwick to Northumberland last week, if I'd been caught speeding on the M25, the M1 and the A69 should they all count as a single offence?

In this instance you would get 3 different tickets I believe. They are different roads and potentially with different speed limits.

Similarly the comment about murdering numerous people, it's numerous offences, as you can't exactly murder the same person numerous times which would be the case in the OP's question.

Speeding for 10 miles along the M1 through 3 cameras would be 1 ticket as you are effectively still carrying out the same offence. I believe there is a precedent for this in UK law.

The comment about the guy getting done on the M6 a number of times and losing his license, I believe was down to him getting stopped numerous times by coppers, not just pictured by a camera.

From a vague recollection of a thread I read on Pepipoo (so multiple opportunities for this to be wrong), it may be something to do with whether or not you could prove they had dropped below the limit then up over it again. If you get pulled over and ticketed three times for doing 100 then obviously you've exceeded the limit three times, but in passing a number of cameras on the same road then it may not be possible to say that you had or hadn't, so only one offence can be proven. If you've changed roads then there would be a reasonable inference that you'd slowed down for the junction/roundabout/etc., depending on the locations of course.

It can only be one offence per occasion of exceeding the limit, you can't prosecute multiple offices for speeding in multiple locations when they could have maintained that excessive speed throughout, otherwise it could get silly.

Like andermt said.

If you slowed down and sped up, two offences.

If you didn't, one offence.

http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/news/1095/163/Clutching-at-straws-Loophole-Lawyer-aka-Nick-Freeman---fails-to-defend-Chris-Tarrant.php

It can only be one offence per occasion of exceeding the limit, you can't prosecute multiple offices for speeding in multiple locations when they could have maintained that excessive speed throughout, otherwise it could get silly.

Well you might get more points than that, but I suppose it would be up to the prosecution to show that you couldn't have maintained 70+ the whole way - CCTV of you at a services, stand still traffic, something like that perhaps - it would depend on that. I agree that it's silly, but it's the result of legal wrangling and arguments.

but it's the result of legal wrangling and arguments.

aka the legal process in action.
oops nearly forgot
😉

It's like when you're robbing a bank, it doesn't become 2 bank robberies just because it took you a really long time. But if you rob another bank, even if it's next door, that's a different bank robbery. How is that fair!!?!

but it's the result of legal wrangling and arguments.
you mean cockweasles trying to make sure other cockweasles keep their licences after doing something particularly cockweasley?
aka the legal process in action.
oops nearly forgot

I would never be so cynical....... 🙂

so, theoretically, you could do the full 225miles of the M6 at 100 and only get 3 points and any associated fine? TBH I'm not sure that is any less silly.

I suspect you'd get more than 3 points for doing the ton on the M6.

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 28 (4)

Where a person is convicted (whether on the same occasion or not) of two or more offences committed on the same occasion and involving obligatory endorsement, the total number of penalty points to be attributed to them is the number or highest number that would be attributed on a conviction of one of them (so that if the convictions are on different occasions the number of penalty points to be attributed to the offences on the later occasion or occasions shall be restricted accordingly)

That's for when you get done for, say, speeding and on your phone at the same time, you only get the points for one of them.

How is 'occasion' defined here?

There was an article in the local paper a couple of years ago about a woman who'd managed to pick up a totting-up ban by speeding through the same camera four times in one day. (Which I can't argue with, that's just driving without due care.)

That would be four occasions, each one being a definable point in time that can be separated from the other three. It's a little confusing because it also refers to occasions in the context of being convicted on different occasions, which, for example, might be that at your first hearing you plead guilty to speeding (thereby convicted of it), but deny being on your phone, and are later convicted of that at a trial. Make sense?

Surely it would need to be argued in court to define how silly it is?

Being charged twice for passing two speeding cameras a mile apart, I'd agree that would be silly. If they were 10 miles apart, then it would be difficult to argue that your speed just 'crept up'. 50 miles apart and I reckon you're shit out of luck.

Being charged twice for passing two speeding cameras a mile apart, I'd agree that would be silly.

I dunno, once may be a momentary lapse of judgement, twice a mile apart is probably habitual speeding (and also either contemptuous or DWDC if you got flashed).

To answer the original question- hopefully no hardworking motorway contractors get killed.

I dunno, once may be a momentary lapse of judgement, twice a mile apart is probably habitual speeding

At motorway speeds, that could be the distance required to overtake a handful of cars. Or even one. I'm not sure that equates to habitual speeding. If I were the judge, I think I could be lenient on that one!

What I meant when I said it'll get silly, is that if you say speeding at point A is an offence and speeding at point B is a separate offence, rather than a continuation of the same offence, you must either define a distance at which the offence is over and a new one starts, or say that the first offence is over once they go below the limit, and the new one starts when they go over it again (which is what it is).

If you do neither you'll end up with nonsense like a seperate offence occurring every few metres, every foot, every inch?

If you can say for definite that the speeding ceased and then started again, you can prosecute for two, if you can't seperate them with a period of lawfulness, you've just got one. I assume the burden of proof in this scenario lies with the prosecution.

Notwithstanding of course, that to tell the beak 'actually I was doing over 70 for many miles m'lord, so you can only do me for speeding once' might be counter productive 🙂

You've not quite got the hang of "average" yet then?

You, however seem to have mastered the ability to be condescending and patronising to people on the internet you've never met 😉

Snappy comeback.

.

Well worth the wait I thought

So, if I were to drive down the motorway with a Gatling gun attached to my roof, so long as I keep the trigger depressed, I can only be held accountable for the first indiscriminate slaying that I make...interesting. When's the next Labour party conference?

I believe this was tested in court many years ago in a case involving a tv celebrity who ran multiple cameras on a single stretch of road at a speed which suggested they were unlikely to have slowed below the limit in between.

The outcome was iirc multiple fines and points.

However a quick Google search suggests you might have a chance in court and it would turn on the facts of the case according to the first law firm link I followed.

Best not to speed through them then it won't matter 😛

So, if I were to drive down the motorway with a Gatling gun attached to my roof, so long as I keep the trigger depressed, I can only be held accountable for the first indiscriminate slaying that I make...interesting. When's the next Labour party conference?

Obviously you know that's not what would happen, but in case you don't know why, in his case, it comes down to whether it could be proven that he had exceeded the speed limit more than once. Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't. In your case, it would come down to whether it could be proven that you had killed each victim, which I suspect it could.

Cops running speed awareness course told us average speed cameras aren't used for fines / revenue. They are there for safety first just working as a deterrent and rarely, if ever are fines issued. GATSOs likewise are rarely issuing fines, though we'll see if the supposedly now active M25 ones are actually issuing them (noting that a lot of the gantries don't actually have a GATSO despite the lines on the ground). They said the vast majority of the revenue comes from mobile units. I think everyone on my course, including myself, got nabbed by mobile units.

I noticed this weekend, driving from Scotland to Essex and back, that observance of the 50mph limits on the M1 and M6 and basically everywhere was pretty good.

When these overhead speed gantries are showing the NSL sign, or appear to be switched off and unlit, then are the speed cameras mounted behind these signs still turned on?

In other words if you go past the said signs late at night at for example 95mph (a perfectly safe speed for light traffic conditions and good weather), then would you still end up with a ticket from these cameras in this situation?

So its an average between cameras? or an average between the first and last camera on the stretch of motorway?

Is this actually stated anywhere in the rules?

It depends agent007 - the earlier versions of the HADECS specs only enabled the cameras when the variable speed limit was set lower than the default speed limit - so if sign was off or displaying NSL, camera was disabled. The more recent versions of the HADECS spec has closed this down so the cameras are enabled at all times.

Another thought - as the question refers specifically to Managed Motorways (or Smart Motorways as they are now officially known), this would imply variable speed limits. So... knowing that they tend to taper the limit down, let's say you are approaching congestion, get flashed whilst the limit is NSL, get flashed when the limit has dropped to 60mph, and again when the limit has dropped again to 50mph and you haven't adjusted your speed at all... What then?

So its an average between cameras? or an average between the first and last camera on the stretch of motorway?

It's an average between cameras. Otherwise you could whack down the motorway at Mach 1 so long as you stopped for lunch halfway down.

When these overhead speed gantries are showing the NSL sign, or appear to be switched off and unlit, then are the speed cameras mounted behind these signs still turned on?

I believe they're off; however, I've never been brave enough to test that theory.

The more recent versions of the HADECS spec has closed this down so the cameras are enabled at all times.

Oh yeah, so it has. http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/hadecs-3.htm

I'd missed that, cheers.

If you go to court it seems like you could argue that 100 miles of constant speeding = one offence. However, if the judge/magistrate deemed that one offence to be severe enough, they could still presumably disqualify you and fine you £2500, as that's within the maximum sentencing?

HADECS aren't everywhere. On the M25 they're only along the Kent stretch. The ones on the M25 that were more recently "switched on" are GATSOs along the Surrey stretch. They've been there for years but not active at all until now. You can see them every few gantries but also easier to see which ones don't have them. Have to look for GATSO shaped boxes the other side of the variable speed signs, or sometimes they're the same gantry as the one on the opposite carriageway. Not painted yellow though. Grey boxes, one for each lane.

The issue will be if you trigger camera 1, drop under the trigger speed for camera 2 and then trigger camera 3.

That could be 2 incidents.

I remember speaking to a policeman officer friend of mine who mentioned the average speed cameras for roadworks were managed camera to camera and not through the entire section so multiple offences could be committed. I've never looked in to this though.