For all those people who condemn speeding motorists (and I have never once condoned speeding in build up areas in my several posts about this subject) and now put forward my father as the latest criminal.

He is 71 years old (72 next month), has been driving with a perfectly clean license of well over 50 years. He has spent the last four days in hopsital for a great New Year. On opening up his post, he has received a speeding notice. Apparently at 6.30 am on December 27th, he got caught doing 34 mph in 30 mph zone.

So out of his pension, he must pay a £60 fine and has now been branded a criminal with 3 points on his licence.

I will not condone speeding, but how on earth can anyone support justice in that situation? Please someone tell me!

I'm not sure if a fixed penalty speeding fine is classed as a criminal offence.

But overall the law is the same for everyone regardless of age or previous driving record, and that's how it should be.

Originally posted by MobileB
I will not condone speeding

You won't condone speeding but your narked your dad has been done for 34mph in 30 zone ?

Ok its not excessive speed but in reality its still speeding above the set limit.. If it had been anyone else they would have got the same ticket and fine no doubt.. regardless of age :confused:

Originally posted by MobileB I will not condone speeding, but
how on earth can anyone support justice in that situation? Please someone tell
me!

I'm afraid I'm going to have to blunt; I'm sorry your father has not been well
but I can't see how a sob story is related to a speeding offence? AFAIK personal circumstance is irrelevant to how fast you drive, and I'm not even sure that a speeding fine is classed as a 'criminal offence' in so far as you don't get a criminal record for it; just points that last 5 years.

It's a well known fact that a car hitting someone at 35mph is twice as likely
to kill someone than a car hitting someone at 30mph. We'll be generous and say
that at 34 mph you are only(!) 1.8 times as likely to kill someone. They'll still be 100% dead, whichever way you look at it.

I'm not saying I'm a perfect driver. I've never been caught speeding but I have
noticed by speedo creeping up to the 35 mark (and occassionally even higher if,
for instance, I'm concentrating on something else like a bus trying to pull in
front of me while I'm along side it...).

Sadly, speed cameras, however irritating and no matter how much I think they
are used as a cash cow, do make people more aware of their speed and they do
make people slow down. Hell, they're preferable to the millions of speed humps
all over the place destroying suspension and exhausts!

Originally posted by SnailyBoy
I'm not sure if a fixed penalty speeding fine is classed as a criminal offence.

But overall the law is the same for everyone regardless of age or previous driving record, and that's how it should be.

A Fixed Penalty Notice is informing you that you have commited an offence. The notice offers you the opportunity to mittigate the offence by payment, then all charges are dropped. If payment is not recieved the matter goes to Madgistrates court and you will be braught to justice for the offence committed. Anyone can appeal a Fixed Penalty Notice.

I totally agree with you MobileB. 99% of drivers go over the speed limit occasionally - this does not make them bad drivers.
Unfortunately chances are that good drivers will still get booked and some bad drivers will get away with it.

Once people know where the cameras are , they slow down then speed up after it, this is particularly evident on the ring road near Shalesmoor.

The cameras dont help catch the real criminals like those who steal cars and cause damage/death and have no insurance such as caused the death of an Oughtibridge woman recently.

Cameras also don't take the place of speed bumps as they are on free flowing roads usually not residential areas.

Originally posted by vision
Unfortunately chances are that good drivers will still get booked and some bad drivers will get away with it.

Some good drivers will get booked while some bad drivers will get away with it. No system will ever take into account how good a driver you are. You might not like it, I might not like it, but it's a fact. It's just something that you have to live with.

Cameras also don't take the place of speed bumps as they are on free flowing roads usually not residential areas.

That's the point; they should but they don't. See this thread:

http://sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=330

I'm saying that it would be better to put the speed cameras where speed humps currently are, and no speed cameras on free flowing roads (e.g. Halifax Road).

Originally posted by MobileB
I will not condone speeding, but how on earth can anyone support justice in that situation? Please someone tell me!

I know that 4 mph over the limit isn't much but there has to be a point at which the police prosecute. He was allegedly exceeding the limit by more than 10% so a ticket is to be expected.

If he will have difficulty paying the £60 out of his pension perhaps he could ask the court for more time to pay.

Originally posted by spiffymonkey

It's a well known fact that a car hitting someone at 35mph is twice as likely to kill someone than a car hitting someone at 30mph.

Quote from SafeSpeed:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/lie.html

clarified The thirty-five mph lie

Examples

At 35mph you are twice as likely to kill someone as you are at 30mph. (official example)

At 20 mph 10% are killed
At 30 mph 50% are killed
At 40 mph 90% are killed
At 35 mph it takes an extra 21 feet to stop
Kill your speed or kill a child

Source

Ashton and Mackay 1979

Truth

It's a funny sort of lie this one. The figures and the claim are broadly true, it's just that free travelling speed and impact speed are almost unrelated to one another. Ashton's figures relate to vehicle speed at impact - but we're expected to assume that they refer to free travelling speeds.

We know from official figures from 2001 (for example) that 0.7% of child pedestrians injured in accidents with cars died. And we know that in 2001, 65% of cars at sample sites were exceeding the 30 mph speed limit. But the 0.7% of child pedestrians killed were in all speed limits. Clearly we would have expected more than half to be killed if the implied claim were true.

I think part of the post stated it was at 6:30AM - not likely to be many people about then, especially during the holidays.

BTW be warned - there's a mobile trap on the parkway every now and then. They park the van behind the manor park turn off sign, and the gun is placed just below the sign!

Originally posted by tas1
BTW be warned - there's a mobile trap on the parkway every now and then. They park the van behind the manor park turn off sign, and the gun is placed just below the sign!

Aye, this is true. Friend at work got stung by the gun on Sunday.. 62 in 50 zone :nono:

Originally posted by Deejay
You won't condone speeding but your narked your dad has been done for 34mph in 30 zone ?

Ok its not excessive speed but in reality its still speeding above the set limit.. If it had been anyone else they would have got the same ticket and fine no doubt.. regardless of age :confused:

I will not condone speeding. I have deliberately not stated the location. Shall we just say it was not a built up area and it was not in South Yorkshire. But 6.30 am on the morning after boxing day. You can be sure it was packed full of pedestrians going about their business (if there is indeed a footpath for them to walk on where he was caught).

Oh, one other thing. It was a mobile camera not fixed camera.

Originally posted by SnailyBoy
I'm not sure if a fixed penalty speeding fine is classed as a criminal offence.

Trying telling that to a 71 year old with a 50 year impeccable driving license!

Originally posted by Ravenger
Quote from SafeSpeed:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/lie.html

Yes, I suppose the 30/35 thing would more likely apply if you were doing 50 in a 40 zone, and you had limited braking time. You'd probably get down to 30/35 before smacking some poor sod.

Dodgy stats notwithstanding (yes, I am aware that I brough it up ;) ), the line has to be drawn somewhere. What is too fast and what is not? I would say that 10% above the limit seems reasonable for an instant fine. Even if it's a perfectly fine morning, nobody is about and you are doing 34 it's still above the limit. Would you consider that it's OK to drive through a red light onto a crossroads just because you can't see anyone coming? Traffic law is not subject to the opinion of the driver.

On the other hand, how about this for a solution, given that cameras are generally computerised these days; automatically upping the limit outside 'core' hours (e.g. the place in question could be 50 at that time in the morning). The camera just adjusts the triggering speed based on an internal timer. It'd work like a bus lane, in most respects. What do y'all think? Should I write to my MP with it :)

I feel for your Dad, I really do, he is just the latest victim of the outrageous tax collection scam currently in force. Anybody who says that they always obey the traffic laws is being dishonest with themselves as it is impossible to rigorously stick to every single traffic law over a journey. However well-meaning and diligent you are it is not possible to drive 100 miles without transgressing some law even if you try your utmost.

To spoil your fathers driving record like this is a sin.

As for the figures they are using to brainwash people to support these additional road taxes they are unsupportable. To use the same logic anyone travelling at 80mph would have passed an accident scene 5 minutes before the child ran into the road so it is safer to drive everywhere at 80mph is it?

I would suggest your father go to court and challenge this fine or at least take advice, was their machine calibrated to within 10% is the speedo on his car guaranteed by the manufacturer to be accurate to within 4 mph.

This is a bloody scandal, was the form signed by King John? he was the last ruler who introduced unfair transport taxes.

the machine will be accurate to more than 99%.
The speedo of the car must be within 7% legally I think, but to be safe most manufacturers set them low, so it was probably reading about 37 at the time.
Variable speed limits that go up as well as down would be one solution. But you'd have people claiming that they didn't know the limit had changed, or some such rubbish. It's one idea i'd like to see introduced on the motorway though.

Traffic law is not subject to opinion, but the police have the discretion to take action or not, which is why they were preferable to speed cameras. They could take action against someone speeding or even driving within the speed limit but inappropriately. Cameras don't have any discretion, they ignore bad driving and punish the wrong people.

Somewhat pointless thread this. If the speed limit is 30, and you do 34 then in the eyes of the law you are speeding and therefore unsafe.

However, if you drive on the pavement at 30 then you're a safe driver and don't get caught.

Chortle at this (http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2004/02/02/safety-cameras.html).

Originally posted by MobileB
For all those people who condemn speeding motorists (and I have never once condoned speeding in build up areas in my several posts about this subject) and now put forward my father as the latest criminal.

I will not condone speeding, but how on earth can anyone support justice in that situation? Please someone tell me!
sorry but the law is the law and there for a reason, he old enough to know better
i hope he gets well soon though

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
sorry but the law is the law and there for a reason, he old enough to know better
i hope he gets well soon though

then the law is a ass

Originally posted by Cyclone
Cameras don't have any discretion, they ignore bad driving and punish the wrong people.

They punish the right people, the ones speeding, what they don't do is punish all the bad drivers too.

Originally posted by Whelk
then the law is a ass

There are alot of things you can do to try and get a law like this changed, rather than just breaking it, which helps nobody.

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
sorry but the law is the law and there for a reason, he old enough to know better
i hope he gets well soon though

I'm going to side with MobileB on this one. We all know better, but it doesn't stop accidental transgressions every so often. I know I'd be pretty furious if I got 3 points and 60 quid down for a single moment of error, but on the other hand it's the same reason I've got two kids and not just one ;) These things happen, it'd be my own fault and ultimately I'd just have to accept it.

I just think that people shouldn't take it personally. The camera didn't flash you because you have a clean licence, or are on a pension, or are a good driver usually. It flashed you because when you went through its radar you were above the speed limit. It's as cold and clinical as that.

Sorry, but a law has been broken, and the penalty should stand. Would you have thought that it was equally unfair if someone was convicted of drink driving with say 50 micrograms of alcohol in their breath (the limit is 35)? Lets take it a stage further - a man sleeps with a girl he thinks is 16 but is actually 14? Slight mistake? Let it go? Its only a small percentage difference after all! (I am not, repeat, am not, saying that anyone here, there, or anwhere has done anything like that. I want to make that completely clear!!!! Its an example!!)

Laws are set to be followed. Yes we all speed, I admit I do, but doing so means I have to take the risk I will be caught and fined. Its as simple and set in stone as that.

Why should anyone be exempt because they have a clean licence for 50 years? I cant understand that argument. If theyve been driving that long, surely they should know better!

The point is though that speed cameras are used to make money, and the speed limits, in my opnion are too low. That said, for the time being, they are set where they are and if we break them, we run the risk of being caught.

yes if they make exceptions for old people, then what about new drivers, disabled, etc... the law not perfect but we have to abide by it - whether we like it or loathe it

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
yes if they make exceptions for old people, then what about new drivers, disabled, etc... the law not perfect but we have to abide by it - whether we like it or loathe it

Precisely. Couldnt have put it better.

I'd let it go to court, then spread the payments out over a year.
Waste there time!

Originally posted by chri5
I'd let it go to court, then spread the payments out over a year.
Waste there time!
The trouble with doing that means that he will end up with a record..CCJ or something. If people dont pay the littering fines i give out they get a Criminal record.

True but if those matters arn't to important to that senior citizen it may be worth dragging a 4mph through the sytem and see what happens!

disclaimer "This topic gets me sooooo mad!!!"

Originally posted by Snook
There are alot of things you can do to try and get a law like this changed, rather than just breaking it, which helps nobody.

That was a quote from Dickens not my own words.

Who are you kidding - get the law changed when the authorities are raking in cash on this scale ! more chance of getting them to give us an adequate public transport system.

Let's put this into context - it is NOTHING to do with safety, children, accidents, lives, NOTHING AT ALL! it is EVERYTHING to do with collecting money.

Nobody is asking for exceptions for old people or people with long driving histories. In a lot of other countries fines are levied for speeding but no points this is one of the few countries where if you drive for a living you run a very real chance of losing your livelihood over really minor inconsequential transgressions.

I also have kids and I don't feel any safer now that some poor old sod has been hounded and robbed of £60 over a poxy 4mph.

Originally posted by Whelk
I feel for your Dad, I really do, he is just the latest victim of the outrageous tax collection scam currently in force. Anybody who says that they always obey the traffic laws is being dishonest with themselves as it is impossible to rigorously stick to every single traffic law over a journey. However well-meaning and diligent you are it is not possible to drive 100 miles without transgressing some law even if you try your utmost.
If that's the case then the gentleman in question must have been very lucky indeed.

If, as you claim, you can't help committing an offence every hundred miles and the driver in question drove an average 10,000 miles per year he must have comitted 5,000 motoring offences! In view of this a single speeding ticket is extremely fortunate. I'll take those odds any day!

I am not so fortunate. I drive 13-15,000 miles a year and get a speeding ticket on average every 3 or 4 years. I pay the fine without complaining. I do so because I'm responsible for the speed of my car. If I speed I run the risk of getting caught.

Originally posted by InvalidUser
If that's the case then the gentleman in question must have been very lucky indeed.

If, as you claim, you can't help committing an offence every hundred miles and the driver in question drove an average 10,000 miles per year he must have comitted 5,000 motoring offences! In view of this a single speeding ticket is extremely fortunate. I'll take those odds any day!

I am not so fortunate. I drive 13-15,000 miles a year and get a speeding ticket on average every 3 or 4 years. I pay the fine without complaining. I do so because I'm responsible for the speed of my car. If I speed I run the risk of getting caught.

Actually I think the odds are probably even higher. I would love to monitor your car on one simple journey across town, noting every single time you transgressed a minor rule such as right of way, amber/red light, sitting on a the edge of a yellow box etc. etc. Be honest with yourself, you are not whiter than snow. How many times have you driven at 34mph (or quicker) in a 30mph limit? If you were 3 pointed on EVERY occasion you would be out of work within a month or probably even less.

Now I am not saying that these are 'acts of God' of course you are responsible for your own behavior but luck shouldn't be a part of it. Now if your 15K miles are year are mainly motorway driving you will accept that the odds on getting a camera trap is a lot less that town or city driving. If you were to be doing 45K miles a year urban driving (as a lot of delivery drivers do) then by your own record and a little bad luck you would be in danger of losing your license.
I stand by what I said.

Originally posted by Whelk
Actually I think the odds are probably even higher. I would love to monitor your car on one simple journey across town, noting every single time you transgressed a minor rule such as right of way, amber/red light, sitting on a the edge of a yellow box etc. etc. Be honest with yourself, you are not whiter than snow. How many times have you driven at 34mph (or quicker) in a 30mph limit? If you were 3 pointed on EVERY occasion you would be out of work within a month or probably even less.

Now I am not saying that these are 'acts of God' of course you are responsible for your own behavior but luck shouldn't be a part of it. Now if your 15K miles are year are mainly motorway driving you will accept that the odds on getting a camera trap is a lot less that town or city driving. If you were to be doing 45K miles a year urban driving (as a lot of delivery drivers do) then by your own record and a little bad luck you would be in danger of losing your license.
I stand by what I said.
But luck is a part of it. When I'm on the Parkway I'll always do more than 50 (unless the volume of traffic slows me down). One day a copper pulled out behind me and I got 3 points and £60 fine. Luck of the draw.

It's not the coppers fault, it's not the Department of Transport's fault, it's my fault. I knew the risks and took a chance. Most of the time it pays off, sometimes I get a ticket. I think it's unfair to complain about speeding tickets if they've caught you bang to rights.

The people I know who drive for living, including a couple of taxi drivers, manage to do their job and hold on to their licences.

Originally posted by InvalidUser
But luck is a part of it. When I'm on the Parkway I'll always do more than 50 (unless the volume of traffic slows me down). One day a copper pulled out behind me and I got 3 points and £60 fine. Luck of the draw.

It's not the coppers fault, it's not the Department of Transport's fault, it's my fault. I knew the risks and took a chance. Most of the time it pays off, sometimes I get a ticket. I think it's unfair to complain about speeding tickets if they've caught you bang to rights.

The people I know who drive for living, including a couple of taxi drivers, manage to do their job and hold on to their licences.

Yeah, I agree. I've just had a parking ticket, but I'm going to pay it with no complaints. The top and bottom of it is that I parked where I shouldn't have, took a chance (for my convenience) and got caught. Fair cop.

Just two other things though. Your dad HASN'T got a criminal record, it's a traffic offence not a crime. It doesn't go on his "record", although of course he'll have to declare it to the insurance company.

And another thing. The older we are, the more our reactions slow down. So someone in their 70's speeding, can be more dangerous - although I accept it was Boxing Day. But laws are laws, and they aren't laws for certain days of the year, or for certain speeds above the limit.

I'd want to stick up for my family too, but he does just have to accept that he has been caught speeding and pay the fine.

Some of this is fair enough. A law is a law and that's that.
If I knowingly park on double yellows then I'll take my fine - I don't get 3 points. If I have bald tyres I'll take my fine and 3 points no argument. If I am drunk whilst driving I wouldn't complain if someone wanted me hanged - I am not disputing any of this.

What I am saying is that the speeding laws are impossible to stick to all of the time, parking on double yellows is a deliberate act drifting your speed up to 34mph isn't and therefore there should be more flexibility.

Nothing whatsoever has been gained by this punishment, an old man has been mugged out of £60 and a record he was proud of has been spoilt upsetting him needlessly. The roads are not safer as a result. This could have been dealt with quite adequately with a warning letter but that wouldn't achieve the objective of stripping him of his cash would it? And getting his cash is the ONLY objective here.

The thing with speed cameras is that they are so inflexible, arbitary, and impersonal, plus they have a built in time delay to notify you of your offence.

A police officer can use his discretion. Probably your father would at worst have been pulled over and warned, but unless your father was driving dangerously he would probably have been ignored by a traffic cop.

Cameras have no discretion. They can't tell the difference between someone driving at 35mph on an empty road on a bank holiday at 4am and someone driving at the same speed on the same road when it's crowded with school children at 3:30pm.

That's why they're fundamentally unfair.

The time delay angle also gets me. If you get caught by a camera in an unfamiliar area by the time you get the ticket you'll not be sure if you actually were speeding or not.

At least with a policeman pulling you over you'll know if you've been speeding right there and then.

I'll believe speed cameras are used for safety purposes when they start putting them outside schools rather than on safe dual carriageways purposely reduced to 30 or 40mph.

Originally posted by Ravenger
The thing with speed cameras is that they are so inflexible, arbitary, and impersonal, plus they have a built in time delay to notify you of your offence.


I'll believe speed cameras are used for safety purposes when they start putting them outside schools rather than on safe dual carriageways purposely reduced to 30 or 40mph.

Exactly, safety is the brainwashing technique they are using to get everyone to accept their taxes/fines without challenge.

They are set by humans and are getting increasingly tighter, a few years back it would have been unheard of to get a fine for 34mph. The camera would have been set to go off at a higher speed. Since the authorities have discovered what a lovely little earner this is then the tolerances are being set tighter and tighter. If they can tighten it down just 1 mph they will earn millions extra, all they need to do is to convince everyone that they are doing it for our own good.
The same way that terrorism or the fear of terrorism is being used to bring in ID cards.

Well the murder rate is going through the roof, muggings and violent crime are soaring, gun crime is now an everyday reality but what the hey lets trap 70 year old 'Albert Tatlocks' nick £60 out of their pension, make them feel like sh++ and con everyone into thinking that we care aboutt peoples safety.

Speed cameras are supposed to be set at the limit + 10% + 2mph i.e. 30 + 3 + 2 = 35mph so he was unlucky to be caught.

I tried to find some evidence for this 10% or 7% (as i thought it was) or 10% +2 rule, but I can't actually find any.

Originally posted by Ravenger
Cameras have no discretion. They can't tell the difference between someone driving at 35mph on an empty road on a bank holiday at 4am and someone driving at the same speed on the same road when it's crowded with school children at 3:30pm.

That's why they're fundamentally unfair.


Or some might say this is the reason why they ARE fair.

10% + 2mph is the guideline from ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) - it is only a guideline but forces usually stick to it.

http://www.speedguard.co.uk/index.htm

http://www.speedaware.org.uk/Default.asp?PAGE=FAQ - click on 'At what speed do I commit an offence?'

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Rules_useage/The_Law.htm

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html

You can always read the APCO document http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf but it ain't short :)

Originally posted by Whelk
That was a quote from Dickens not my own words.

They didn't have speed cameras when he was around did they? Sorry, I thought that was your opinion, not that you were just posting random quotes that have nothing to do with how you feel.

You'd be amazed at what people can do if they get together behind a course... I don't think the government are going to lose any money if the speed limit was raised by 5 mph, because people will still speed, no matter what the law... its human nature.

I think the 30, 40 and 50 are fine, but the speed limit on the motorway is a joke. It should be moved to 90, and nothing at all will change.

Originally posted by Whelk
Well the murder rate is going through the roof, muggings and violent crime are soaring, gun crime is now an everyday reality but what the hey lets trap 70 year old 'Albert Tatlocks' nick £60 out of their pension, make them feel like sh++ and con everyone into thinking that we care aboutt peoples safety.
I agree with you about the police having better things to do but this was one of the arguments for the introduction of cameras; it would free up the police to concentrate on more serious crime.

But cameras can't replace police patrols on the streets. If I drive past the one on the Parkway at 50 mph it'll flash, if the guy behind weaves past it at 30 mph whilst pi$$ed out of his brain it won't.

I’d like to see more police on the roads dealing with the drunk, uninsured & dangerous drivers that the cameras miss.

Originally posted by InvalidUser

But cameras can't replace police patrols on the streets. If I drive past the one on the Parkway at 50 mph it'll flash, if the guy behind weaves past it at 30 mph whilst pi$$ed out of his brain it won't.

I’d like to see more police on the roads dealing with the drunk, uninsured & dangerous drivers that the cameras miss.

I think that this was the point. Police officer stops a driver doing 57 in a 50 zone, and as he's stood next to the car a lunatic swerves past narrowly avoiding another car and away he goes, quite obviously drunk. At best the policeman can radio in the number plate. If he hadn't had to mess about with the speeding ticket he'd have still been on the road, catching the so called 'bad drivers' (as opposed to the 'good drivers' who are beyond reproach, apparently).

Ok i will not give you the full story.

The incident happened at 6.30 am on Dec 27. He had driven through a small village where the speed limit was 30 mph either side of a national speed limit area. There was absolutely no pedestrians about. The mobile speed unit was situated just prior to the national speed limit sign in a layby. It was in a stretch of around 300 yards where the houses to the village finish and the nsl starts. There is no footpath just road into woodland as there is after the nsl sign.He slowed to 30mph to go through the village. I have looked at the notice myself it states 34mph. He says he remembers the van parked in the layby and wondered what is was.

Given these people who man these things are supposed to be off duty officers, how sad a life as that guy got to be manning one of them things at 6.30 am on Dec 27?

Now, the law is the law people. The risk of accidents happening people. Do you still think this law is not a stealth tax?

There are some ppl on here who know my father and me! With his illness, needless to say, we've told him not pay it until the last minute, he might get away with it! (and yeah, he does see the funny side).

MobileB
Go on, tell us where it happened (pm me if you don't want everyone to know). Reason I ask is because I avoid area's that are over zealous. Places like Matlock and North Wales spring to mind. If it's a touristy area I'll mail the tourist office and tell them that I won't be spending money by visiting there anymore.
By the way, the reason why the coppers are there at 6:30 am is that they're earning good money in overtime.

Originally posted by Cols

By the way, the reason why the coppers are there at 6:30 am is that they're earning good money in overtime.

The urban myth strikes back. Police can not earn overtime to do duties such as that.

a speed limit is a speed limit. A law is a law. By breaking the speed limit you risk the chance of being caught. He was caught.

There is a reason why there are speed limits. If people didn't spend their time rushing about everywhere the roads would be a lot safer.

Originally posted by robbie
a speed limit is a speed limit. A law is a law. By breaking the speed limit you risk the chance of being caught. He was caught.

There is a reason why there are speed limits. If people didn't spend their time rushing about everywhere the roads would be a lot safer.

Robbie.

Sheffield Council writes to you and said you owe them some money for business rates. You say to them "What letter". They say "we posted it to you on such a date." You say. "I dont know anything about this. What business rates?" They say "Tough, we posted. You didnt reply with 28 days therefore you owe it"

The Law is the Law. You owe it because they say you do. You can only contest if you can prove you did not receive the letter. Try proving that.

Would you hope that Sheffield Council showed a bit of common sense or would you say the Law is the Law?

Thats different. Everyone KNOWS the speed limit. If you dont, how did you pass your test!

Originally posted by MobileB
Ok i will not give you the full story.

The incident happened at 6.30 am on Dec 27. He had driven through a small village where the speed limit was 30 mph either side of a national speed limit area.

Why not just reveal the name of the village where the speed trap was situated ? why the big secret ? after all the safety camera partnership publish where these mobile traps are to be located.

By revealing the location it will prevent other motorists from suffering the misfortune that your father has encounted, Im always open in warning people about the mobile camera operating on the parkway for instance.


MobileB pm'd, fully appreciate reasons why, cheers

Originally posted by mega_monty
Why not just reveal the name of the village where the speed trap was situated ? why the big secret ? after all the safety camera partnership publish where these mobile traps are to be located.

By revealing the location it will prevent other motorists from suffering the misfortune that your father has encounted, Im always open in warning people about the mobile camera operating on the parkway for instance.

I've pm'd you why Monty. Hope you understand.

Originally posted by Mooseyb
Thats different. Everyone KNOWS the speed limit. If you dont, how did you pass your test!

Unlike my father, I do. Travel 20000 miles a year and have a perfectly clean license.

But I do confess today to blocking a yellow box. Total accident. The car in front of me stopped about two car lengths behind another one. A camera (and they say the are putting them in yellow boxes) would have caught me and fined me and possibly put points on my license. A traffic officer would have seen what the car in front had done and reacted accordingly.

But I suppose the Law is the Law.

Originally posted by Whelk
Actually I think the odds are probably even higher. I would love to monitor your car on one simple journey across town, noting every single time you transgressed a minor rule such as right of way, amber/red light, sitting on a the edge of a yellow box etc. etc. Be honest with yourself, you are not whiter than snow. How many times have you driven at 34mph (or quicker) in a 30mph limit? If you were 3 pointed on EVERY occasion you would be out of work within a month or probably even less.

Now I am not saying that these are 'acts of God' of course you are responsible for your own behavior but luck shouldn't be a part of it. Now if your 15K miles are year are mainly motorway driving you will accept that the odds on getting a camera trap is a lot less that town or city driving. If you were to be doing 45K miles a year urban driving (as a lot of delivery drivers do) then by your own record and a little bad luck you would be in danger of losing your license.
I stand by what I said.

For God's sake - not this old 'speed trap' chestnut again!!:rolleyes:

And in answer to Whelk, I could drive for 100 (or more) without breaking a law - don't tar everyone with your own failings.

Originally posted by MobileB
Unlike my father, I do. Travel 20000 miles a year and have a perfectly clean license.

But I do confess today to blocking a yellow box. Total accident. The car in front of me stopped about two car lengths behind another one. A camera (and they say the are putting them in yellow boxes) would have caught me and fined me and possibly put points on my license. A traffic officer would have seen what the car in front had done and reacted accordingly.

But I suppose the Law is the Law.

Two things there. If he doesnt know the speed limits, should he be driving?

And secondly, yes, the law is the law. Doesnt matter if the car in front was too stupid to pull forward, the fact remains that you could have waited till you could clearly leave the box junction (as it states in the highway code), and then entered it. I seem to remember the highway code says "do not enter a box junction until your exit is clear". Seems straightforward to me. Traffic law violation = penalty.

Im sorry but you wont persuade me, or many others that your father is innocent. Its one speeding fine. Its not a conviction for murder. Live with it.

Originally posted by Mooseyb
Two things there. If he doesnt know the speed limits, should he be driving?

And secondly, yes, the law is the law. Doesnt matter if the car in front was too stupid to pull forward, the fact remains that you could have waited till you could clearly leave the box junction (as it states in the highway code), and then entered it. I seem to remember the highway code says "do not enter a box junction until your exit is clear". Seems straightforward to me. Traffic law violation = penalty.

Im sorry but you wont persuade me, or many others that your father is innocent. Its one speeding fine. Its not a conviction for murder. Live with it.

and i suppose people with your black and white view of the world are the reason behind the proliferation of automated systems to punish minor infringements.
Do you view everything in life as so black and white or can you see the shades of grey sometimes?

Yes thanks I can see plenty of things in grey, however the fact remains that someone who breaks a law should be punished for breaking that law accordingly. If I speed, I take the risk of being punished for speeding. If I steal, I take the risk of punishment.

Yes there is mitigation, but the fact remains, and it is a fact that you cannot dispute, that a law has been broken. Its that simple.

Question for you then. If you allow one pensioner to escape punishment for whatever reason, where do you draw the line? Can then a pregnant mother be allowed the same liberty? What about a disabled driver? A nun? Where does it stop?

The whole point behind fixed penalty offences is that they are minor and clear cut. You have either committed the offence or you havent. Fixed penalties free up Court time to deal with more important matters, where the "shades of grey" you mention can be considered. Yes there are a lot more issues to consider in more serious offences. I deal with them all day every day, but motoring is simply down to fact.

If you want Courts or fine staff to consider one person raising an issue, everyone caught speeding will try it on. You will open the floodgates. Then more staff will be needed to consider these issues. Who is going to pay for that do you think? Higher taxes? Higher speeding fines? You? I suspect its one of the first two. Someone here said a few weeks ago that they would argue a fine because the Courts havent the time to bother investigating it. Quite right, they havent. They have more serious things to deal with.

Thats why traffic offences are black and white.

Originally posted by Saxon
For God's sake - not this old 'speed trap' chestnut again!!:rolleyes:

And in answer to Whelk, I could drive for 100 (or more) without breaking a law - don't tar everyone with your own failings.

yea, yea, yea, you are the bestest driver in the world.
Even the President of the Advanced Institute of Motorists lost his licence in camera traps.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1414609,00.html

I am not tarring anyone with my failings but I am being honest, try being honest with yourself because I do not believe that you have NEVER broken a traffic law ever, it simply isn't possible. Yes I could do 100 miles on a motorway but 100 miles of urban driving? Let me put you in East London with the mission to drive to West London right through the centre and see if you break any laws. You know and I know that it is not possible so before disputing what I say try to be really honest with yourself as we all know that even with excellent training driving instructors are just fallable humans.

Originally posted by InvalidUser


The people I know who drive for living, including a couple of taxi drivers, manage to do their job and hold on to their licences.

Well aren't you the luckiest person around with the luckiest mates including lucky taxi drivers.
The PRESIDENT of the Institute of advanced motorists wasn't so lucky.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1414609,00.html

Originally posted by Whelk
100 miles of urban driving? Let me put you in East London with the mission to drive to West London right through the centre and see if you break any laws. You know and I know that it is not
Of course it is possible, to say that it isn't is ludicrous.

Just as ludicrous as suggesting it isn't possible to slow down from a national limit to 30 for a small village and then speed back up AFTER the national speed limit sign.

MobileB, if your father saw the van, didn't it occur to him it could've been a speed camera van, or perhaps a delivery driver (maybe half asleep) just about to pull out, someone with a good driving record in that circumstance *might* slow down a bit to just to be safe.

Originally posted by Mooseyb
Yes thanks I can see plenty of things in grey, however the fact remains that someone who breaks a law should be punished for breaking that law accordingly. If I speed, I take the risk of being punished for speeding. If I steal, I take the risk of punishment.

Yes there is mitigation, but the fact remains, and it is a fact that you cannot dispute, that a law has been broken. Its that simple.

Question for you then. If you allow one pensioner to escape punishment for whatever reason, where do you draw the line? Can then a pregnant mother be allowed the same liberty? What about a disabled driver? A nun? Where does it stop?

The whole point behind fixed penalty offences is that they are minor and clear cut. You have either committed the offence or you havent. Fixed penalties free up Court time to deal with more important matters, where the "shades of grey" you mention can be considered. Yes there are a lot more issues to consider in more serious offences. I deal with them all day every day, but motoring is simply down to fact.

If you want Courts or fine staff to consider one person raising an issue, everyone caught speeding will try it on. You will open the floodgates. Then more staff will be needed to consider these issues. Who is going to pay for that do you think? Higher taxes? Higher speeding fines? You? I suspect its one of the first two. Someone here said a few weeks ago that they would argue a fine because the Courts havent the time to bother investigating it. Quite right, they havent. They have more serious things to deal with.

Thats why traffic offences are black and white.

Which is not disputed Moose. But there is no grey and the punishment takes absolutely nothing into account.

A young driver with 6 months experience gets the same punishment as someone with 50 years unblemished (lucky or not lukcy). I accept that tottting up is means less experienced driver can accumulate less points before a ban but the punishment for the offence - 3pts, £60, is the same irrespective.

Similarly, at £60 you are taking approximately 60% of a pensioners weekly allowance to pay for the fine. That would be like fining someone who earns £20,000 a year £330 or even someone on £10,000 being fined £115. Calculate 60% of your own weekly wage, how much would you pay, and then do you think it is fair?

It seems strange that a government that is so keen on means testing people with a 24 page form to fill in to receive about £6 pension credit a week, can issue straight fines that are simple (to free up court time!).

But as people say on here. The Law is the Law. It doesnt make it right though does it.

Originally posted by MobileB
A young driver with 6 months experience gets the same punishment as someone with 50 years unblemished (lucky or not lukcy).
FYI that's not true, the young driver would need to re-sit thier test. Any offence in the first year leads to re-test, passing is now only "provisional" for the first 12 months.

I dont dispute its a lot for a pensioner to pay. I never have. I just see speeding and other motoring offences as clear cut.

Again though the problem with levels of fines is Court time. Given the amount of crime these days, the Courts just dont have the time to consider individual fine levels. There arent enough Court officers to do it, and to employ more leads to more revenue needed to fund it, which leads to higher fines. Its a vicious circle really.

Heres a thought though. Imagine you have someone who earns £20k a year. 60% of his weekly income (which is about £200, by the way) goes on a fine for driving at say 35 in a 40. Someone else who works at McDonalds, a 20 year old in a Nova SRi, drives through the same camera at 45. Because he earns say £8000, he pays a hell of a lot less for driving at a higher speed. Should he not be more careful because he knows it will be more costly to him? Conversely, does that mean that Mr £20k is getting off more lightly if the fines are fixed at £60?

Theres no answer to that I suspect. You cant please everyone with that one.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Of course it is possible, to say that it isn't is ludicrous.



Just as ludicrous as suggesting it isn't possible to slow down from a national limit to 30 for a small village and then speed back up AFTER the national speed limit sign.


MobileB, if your father saw the van, didn't it occur to him it could've been a speed camera van, or perhaps a delivery driver (maybe half asleep) just about to pull out, someone with a good driving record in that circumstance *might* slow down a bit to just to be safe.

1) Alright nothing is impossible but I would say that is one thing that is as close to impossible as to be unworthy of argument. Over 100 miles in unfamiliar territory amongst extremely heavy traffic acting aggressively - you would not push your way onto a junction? be stuck in the wrong lane? get caught between lights? not enter a box until your exit was clear? block someones right of way? etc. etc.
Have you ever driven in London? At 5 o/c in the evening you couldn't even drive a short distance from Barking to Beckton with making a minor transgression.

2) He slowed down to 34mph - hardly wacky races is it?

3) Slam your brakes on at the sight of every parked van - must remember that one.

the shade of grey that a traffic officer would have seen was that he was approaching a change up in the speed limit and had already passed the residential area.
I don't think there'd be a traffic cop in the country that would pull someone for that behaviour. The cynical, fine generating placing of a mobile trap though was done deliberately to catch most drivers, rather than to reduce a danger or punish bad drivers.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Of course it is possible, to say that it isn't is ludicrous.

Just as ludicrous as suggesting it isn't possible to slow down from a national limit to 30 for a small village and then speed back up AFTER the national speed limit sign.

MobileB, if your father saw the van, didn't it occur to him it could've been a speed camera van, or perhaps a delivery driver (maybe half asleep) just about to pull out, someone with a good driving record in that circumstance *might* slow down a bit to just to be safe.

Or perhaps when you are driving down the M1 like I was on Christmas day evening would you expect someone to be travelling alongside you in the same direction on the opposite carriageway?

I obviously do not know what his thoughts were at that particular time. He was in the middle of a 90 mile journey. He just says thinking back he can remember the van.

I found something ironic out yesterday. I was in Tradeprint on Abbeydale Road yesterday afternoon. At 5.15 am on the same morning as my father got penalised, a BMW tried to a U turn at the traffic lights. The guy tried the moneuvre by his own admission too fast resulting in him losing control and going through the shop window. He had his mother and his young brother in the back. At 5.15 am in the morning.

So quiz for today, which one of the two drivers on the same day within 75 minutes of each other has received the biggest punishment?

Originally posted by Mooseyb
Imagine you have someone who earns £20k a year. 60% of his weekly income (which is about £200, by the way)

£20,000 = £384 per week gross. You couldnt take into account net because that would involve means testing as 40% of the population do not have a standard tax code. Thats why the CSA got in such a mess and amended their rules to a simple percentage based on gross wage.

Originally posted by Whelk
2) He slowed down to 34mph - hardly wacky races is it?

3) Slam your brakes on at the sight of every parked van - must remember that one.
Response to above:

2) No it's not "Wacky Races", but it's not slowing to an appropriate speed either.

3) I didn't say "slam the brakes on", I said "slow down a bit", you know to an appropriate speed, ie BELOW the speed limit would help.

As has been said above by someone else, if he was caught doing 34mph the indicated speed in the car would have been *at least* 37mph, that is neither within the law, nor the spirit of the law, especially not in a small rural village.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the shade of grey that a traffic officer would have seen was that he was approaching a change up in the speed limit and had already passed the residential area.
I don't think there'd be a traffic cop in the country that would pull someone for that behaviour. The cynical, fine generating placing of a mobile trap though was done deliberately to catch most drivers, rather than to reduce a danger or punish bad drivers.

I dont deny speed cameras are generally there to make money but...

Speed limit 30mph
Speed at time 34mph

Speeding. Yes its harsh, yes i would be upset, but i would look at it as bad luck. I would have been caught, its as simple as that. Its not a nice tactic, its not doing much for safety, but its the law. If police officers start letting people off for 34mph, do they then let them off for 36? Its only 2mph. If so, why not change the limit to 35?

Originally posted by MobileB
I found something ironic out yesterday. I was in Tradeprint on Abbeydale Road yesterday afternoon. At 5.15 am on the same morning as my father got penalised, a BMW tried to a U turn at the traffic lights. The guy tried the moneuvre by his own admission too fast resulting in him losing control and going through the shop window. He had his mother and his young brother in the back. At 5.15 am in the morning.

So quiz for today, which one of the two drivers on the same day within 75 minutes of each other has received the biggest punishment?
I know, things like this are very *frustrating*, to say the least.

Originally posted by Whelk
1) Alright nothing is impossible but I would say that is one thing that is as close to impossible as to be unworthy of argument. Over 100 miles in unfamiliar territory amongst extremely heavy traffic acting aggressively - you would not push your way onto a junction? be stuck in the wrong lane? get caught between lights? not enter a box until your exit was clear? block someones right of way? etc. etc.
Have you ever driven in London? At 5 o/c in the evening you couldn't even drive a short distance from Barking to Beckton with making a minor transgression.


That is so true. I challenge anyone - go on Saxon take up the challenge with one of your pupils - to go to London in rush hour. Come off the A4 at Hammersmith roundabout and take the last exit to go to the Novotel at 5pm at night. And tell me you can do that without breaking at least six rules of the Highway Code and one Law.

Two points

1) There is a well known and publicised speed limit on all public roads
2) The police are punishing people who break this law

In what sense is anyone "having a laugh"?

Would this be said of any other law that the police were enforcing?

Yes you have the speeding is speeding argument (which does annoy me) which can go on for ever, but in my opinion, the only people it generally catches are the people who are not high risk drivers or the ones that cause the majority of accidents. What about all the uninsured drivers who's cars are not even registered to them? How many Camera speeding fines go unpaid or are untraceable or get rejected as the car no longer officially exists etc?? What about the persistent offenders with massive records that have no intention of paying the fines, the banned drivers, the scallies, the drunk people.
Cameras catch people speeding regardless of the danger they pose. Is driving at 66 down a country lane at night really any more dangerous than driving at 60? (wait's for someone to say it's the law so it must be) The flip side with old people on the roads is that the cameras don't catch them driving at 15mph with no awareness of other traffic or people or anything!! Some of them may have been driving for 50 years but should have stopped 20 years ago! I was on the M1 Christmas day and came rapidly up behind some old chap doing 40mph. A LOT MORE DANGEROUS than doing 90 in my opinion.

Well I've learned a lot from this.

1) Everybody on here with the exception of me and some unlucky old man is a brilliant law abiding driver who never even unintentionally transgress even the smallest law.

2) Everything in life is black and white. Nothing should ever be questioned.

3) Even if a law is unjust and unfair people will still let it go unquestioned.

4) Some poor old sod gets mugged for £60 and because the government did it then it is considered his own fault.

Thanks for the education.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
FYI that's not true, the young driver would need to re-sit thier test. Any offence in the first year leads to re-test, passing is now only "provisional" for the first 12 months.

Wrong - its 2 years.

But only if they accumulate 6 points within that time.

The police are punishing people who break this law

Well, the easy targets anyway. Not the Joyriders or the people with scrap or unregistered cars etc etc etc...

Originally posted by MobileB
For all those people who condemn speeding motorists (and I have never once condoned speeding in build up areas in my several posts about this subject) and now put forward my father as the latest criminal.

He is 71 years old (72 next month), has been driving with a perfectly clean license of well over 50 years. He has spent the last four days in hopsital for a great New Year. On opening up his post, he has received a speeding notice. Apparently at 6.30 am on December 27th, he got caught doing 34 mph in 30 mph zone.

So out of his pension, he must pay a £60 fine and has now been branded a criminal with 3 points on his licence.

I will not condone speeding, but how on earth can anyone support justice in that situation? Please someone tell me!

SO your dad can't see speed cameras and you cant see small print on the Argos site. May I suggest a joint trip to Specsavers :heyhey:

Yet another post about speeding.

Hasn't this subject been done to death yet?

Originally posted by Whelk
Well I've learned a lot from this.

1) Everybody on here with the exception of me and some unlucky old man is a brilliant law abiding driver who never even unintentionally transgress even the smallest law.

2) Everything in life is black and white. Nothing should ever be questioned.

3) Even if a law is unjust and unfair people will still let it go unquestioned.

4) Some poor old sod gets mugged for £60 and because the government did it then it is considered his own fault.

Thanks for the education.

I never said I was a brilliant driver ( I am though ;) ), what I actually said was that I do speed, but I am fully aware of the risk Im taking that I will be caught. If I get caught, I will have to pay the fine, and its no ones fault but my own because I know the law, and know that there is little point arguing it.

Plenty of laws are unfair. The 70mph speed limit is ridiculously outdated. If I speed, get caught, then whinge, its not going to change it.

At the end of the day, the person with his foot on the accelerator is the one in control of the car, and the one who is at fault if caught speeding. Tony Blair isnt making anyone speed.

Originally posted by Whelk
yea, yea, yea, you are the bestest driver in the world.
Even the President of the Advanced Institute of Motorists lost his licence in camera traps.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1414609,00.html

I am not tarring anyone with my failings but I am being honest, try being honest with yourself because I do not believe that you have NEVER broken a traffic law ever, it simply isn't possible. Yes I could do 100 miles on a motorway but 100 miles of urban driving? Let me put you in East London with the mission to drive to West London right through the centre and see if you break any laws. You know and I know that it is not possible so before disputing what I say try to be really honest with yourself as we all know that even with excellent training driving instructors are just fallable humans.

I never said that I haven't broken a traffic regulation - I said that it could be done.

And yes I know that driving instructors are just as fallible as anyone else - we all learn as we go along. However if I do do something wrong, then at least I know that its wrong and if I get caught, then I hold my hands up and admit it.

Originally posted by MobileB
I challenge anyone - go on Saxon take up the challenge with one of your pupils - to go to London in rush hour. Come off the A4 at Hammersmith roundabout and take the last exit to go to the Novotel at 5pm at night. And tell me you can do that without breaking at least six rules of the Highway Code and one Law.

Hmm.........people seem to like misquoting when it suits them.

I didn't say I could make a pupil do it (ie an inexperienced driver who hasn't yet reached the standard to pass the driving test and whose reactions are slower and whose observational skills are not fully developed). What I said was that I (and for that matter, any other experienced driver) SHOULD be able to drive 100 miles without breaking any traffic regs.

how on earth can anyone support justice in that situation? Please someone tell me!


he got caught doing 34 mph in 30 mph zone


?????????????

I'm confuzzled? your law abiding dad was doing 34mph in a 30mph zone? That doesn't make sense?!

Coincidently, every so often, those 4mph are the difference between someone getting away with bad injuries and someone dying.

Originally posted by Clumber
Wrong - its 2 years.

But only if they accumulate 6 points within that time.

That is correct.

Any driver with less than 2 years on a full licence is automatically disqualified if they accumulate 6 points until all the theory, hazard perception and driving tests are passed, ie, they revert to learner status

Mobile - B

For what it's worth I think your Dad has been treated harshly and sympathise with him completely. Sadly this is just one more tax he will have to pay.

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
Yes you have the speeding is speeding argument (which does annoy me) which can go on for ever, but in my opinion, the only people it generally catches are the people who are not high risk drivers or the ones that cause the majority of accidents. What about all the uninsured drivers who's cars are not even registered to them? How many Camera speeding fines go unpaid or are untraceable or get rejected as the car no longer officially exists etc?? What about the persistent offenders with massive records that have no intention of paying the fines, the banned drivers, the scallies, the drunk people.
Cameras catch people speeding regardless of the danger they pose. Is driving at 66 down a country lane at night really any more dangerous than driving at 60? (wait's for someone to say it's the law so it must be) The flip side with old people on the roads is that the cameras don't catch them driving at 15mph with no awareness of other traffic or people or anything!! Some of them may have been driving for 50 years but should have stopped 20 years ago! I was on the M1 Christmas day and came rapidly up behind some old chap doing 40mph. A LOT MORE DANGEROUS than doing 90 in my opinion.

Well, in that case its the law that needs changing. But whilst the law is that there is a flat speed limit for each type of road, surely we should be either enforcing the law or changing it.

In theory the police do not get to decide which laws they enforce, they have to do everything within their ability to enforce all laws.

Originally posted by Clumber
Wrong - its 2 years.

But only if they accumulate 6 points within that time.
I stand corrected, cheers.

Never the less, just be carefull out there you new drivers, it could be easy to get caught out.

Originally posted by AndrewC
?????????????

I'm confuzzled? your law abiding dad was doing 34mph in a 30mph zone? That doesn't make sense?!

Coincidently, every so often, those 4mph are the difference between someone getting away with bad injuries and someone dying.

and you'd be surprised just how infrequent that is.

Originally posted by Whelk
Well I've learned a lot from this.

1) Everybody on here with the exception of me and some unlucky old man is a brilliant law abiding driver who never even unintentionally transgress even the smallest law.

2) Everything in life is black and white. Nothing should ever be questioned.

3) Even if a law is unjust and unfair people will still let it go unquestioned.

4) Some poor old sod gets mugged for £60 and because the government did it then it is considered his own fault.

Thanks for the education.
Whelk, your rapidly heading from the ludicrous to...

...well, I'll not say.

That is not what is being said (I think) by most people, the gist, as I get it is that a law *was* broken, and therefore why complain about it after the fact.

If you (and others) feel so strongly, go join the ABD or some other campaigning organisation and lobby for the law to be changed. Then you won't have to break it. This applies of course to any law, lobby your MP if you want something changing, it's what they are there for.

There simply is NO use just bleeting about it on here after you've been caught.

unless the bleating on is actually gathering support and testing the waters of public opinion. :suspect:

Originally posted by Cyclone
unless the bleating on is actually gathering support and testing the waters of public opinion. :suspect:
1) No, that still won't reduce the fine.

2) If that *was* the motive, why not start a thread entitled "Do you agree with speed limits in the UK" ?

In theory the police do not get to decide which laws they enforce, they have to do everything within their ability to enforce all laws.
In reality they have the power of discretion, they may choose to give someone a telling off instead. A copper is much more likely to slap your wrist if he catches you driving on a deserted road in good driving conditions slightly over the speed limit than a camera!

MobileB - since this has happened to your dad, has your opinion changed on the matter?

Most of the time, most of the people will possibly agree that - if the council had a policy of taking personal circumstances into account - nothing would get done. Once people knew that there was a chance you could 'get away with it' - everyone would try. I'd prefer the people working for my tax money to be doing other things.

I obviously only feel this way when no emotion is involved - when something bad happens to me or someone I know, i'm the first one to moan. But thats just me - did you feel this strongly a week ago?

Originally posted by AndrewC
?????????????

I'm confuzzled? your law abiding dad was doing 34mph in a 30mph zone? That doesn't make sense?!

Coincidently, every so often, those 4mph are the difference between someone getting away with bad injuries and someone dying.

At 6.30 am, morning after boxing day on a country lane?

Originally posted by MobileB
At 6.30 am, morning after boxing day on a country lane?

(I dont think it matters where/when you get hit by a car :( )

Maybe we should all stop looking out the window and just concentrate on our speed, atleast we would have a good excuse for hitting some one "Sorry I didn't see them I was watching my speedo":loopy:

Originally posted by iffypop
MobileB - since this has happened to your dad, has your opinion changed on the matter?

Most of the time, most of the people will possibly agree that - if the council had a policy of taking personal circumstances into account - nothing would get done. Once people knew that there was a chance you could 'get away with it' - everyone would try. I'd prefer the people working for my tax money to be doing other things.

I obviously only feel this way when no emotion is involved - when something bad happens to me or someone I know, i'm the first one to moan. But thats just me - did you feel this strongly a week ago?

To be honest Iffy, I did try my best not to express an opinion and just state the facts. I accept that they were slanted.

But, I accept the Law, as my father does, and will pay the fine (actually me and me sisters have paid it for him!). But as someone on here said, that does not make it fair or right.

(Dnp I accept that Argos have small print saying their price might not be correct on their notifications telling you the price of something - that does not make it fair or right).

We have a system a very complicated and strange system of Government. For instance, you can work in a job and pay National Insurance for 30 years. This gives you access to the NHS, Pension and Unemployment Schemes. You are then made redundant. After six months, whether you receive benefits is based on a means tested system. That despite you paying the insurance for 30 years. If that was run by an insurance company, the FSA would raise serious doubts.

Similarly, the Government boasts about its pension credit scheme to guarantee pensioners a minimum income each week but is it surprising that 45% of the population have not taken up their entitlement given the means test they have to go through. Yes they try to make it easier by ringing the applicants back and going through the form with them but not before someone has read the form and given up. My parents only carried on because I persisted with them and in the end they got £3.13 per week!! (although admitedly it did get them Council Tax rebate but not before another form had to be filled in!).

However, on the other side of the coin, when it comes to Government Revenue, you get a single fine irrespective of degree of crime, with the excuse they havent got time to means test everyone who gets fined. So if he was doing 55 mph in that zone he would have got the same fine for a 34mph.

So what would I do. Well first stage would be stagger the punishment. Maybe <15% would be say 1 point. 15-25% 3 points 25%-50% 6 points and above 50% a ban. Anyone doing more than 45mph in a 30 zone wants banning.

I would also take into account a previous conviction system. If someone has a clean license and has had for a number of years, why punish them with such draconian measurers for first. If their first transgression was less than say 20% and they have had a clean license for more than 5 years then caution them with no punishment; like they do with any young offenders now for virtually any crime!

I would also look at the fines system and look to tie it in with the NI system. The Government does know how much every individual in this country earns. Each person is currently banded with tax rates. I'm sure this can be turned accordingly with the fines system so that a pensioner and a low income person proportinately is fined the same.

And finally, I would find some system to stop a lot of the many offences that frustrate many of the otherwise law abiding road users that seem to receive the brunt of the speeding notices:

1 - insist an insurance docket is desplayed on the windscreen similar to the tax disc (it works fine in ROI )
2 - get the police cars that are sat on the edge of motorways looking for cars doing 90mph+ to also pull these doing 40-50mph and middle lane drivers and add points and fines to their licenses.

I could go on. But I hope this might give someone somewhere with some power food for though.

Thanks for your reply :)

I cant agree on your idea of weighting punishment in favour of those with no previous convictions or low income earners : this would throw the whole idea of a fine as a speed deterrent out of the window.

As many low income earning kids own unneccesarily fast cars as high earners; I would hate to think that one group believed it had more of a right to bomb around street corners than another.

I believe the same argument could be applied to those with no previous convictions - In exceptional circumstances, might they be more likely to put their foot down hoping that they'll only get half the fine?

I do realise that this is taking the debate entirely out of the scope of what happened to your father, :)

I do however agree totally on your point of staggering punishment, "<15% would be say 1 point. 15-25% 3 points 25%-50%" etc, I think thats a great idea.

iffy

Doesnt matter if your 18 or 80, black, white, male or female and if you drive one mile or a million miles a year.

The speed limits apply to us all.

You can debate the legibility of the speed camera van and all that (as they are sneaky B*****ds IMO) but if you're caught, you're caught.

unreasonably fast being capable of doing 34 mph?

Fining as a % of net income would actually be far fairer than the current system. Afterall an exec will probably not even notice a £60 fine, whereas one of these low income types with excessively fast 34mp cars that could be half a weeks wage. Hardly balance and fair at the moment.

Variable points and fines are already being introduced, so it's a bit late to suggest it. I think they only go up though from 3, not from 1.
And the points system already addresses the repeat offender. Fourth time and they loose their license.

Originally posted by iffypop
Thanks for your reply :)

I cant agree on your idea of weighting punishment in favour of those with no previous convictions or low income earners : this would throw the whole idea of a fine as a speed deterrent out of the window.

As many low income earning kids own unneccesarily fast cars as high earners; I would hate to think that one group believed it had more of a right to bomb around street corners than another.

I believe the same argument could be applied to those with no previous convictions - In exceptional circumstances, might they be more likely to put their foot down hoping that they'll only get half the fine?

I do realise that this is taking the debate entirely out of the scope of what happened to your father, :)

I do however agree totally on your point of staggering punishment, "<15% would be say 1 point. 15-25% 3 points 25%-50%" etc, I think thats a great idea.

iffy

Originally posted by Cyclone
Fining as a % of net income would actually be far fairer than the current system. Afterall an exec will probably not even notice a £60 fine, whereas one of these low income types with excessively fast 34mp cars that could be half a weeks wage. Hardly balance and fair at the moment.

So some little scrote on I.S. could bomb round to thier hearts content, safe in the knowledge that knicking one more car stereo will cover the cost of the *low* means tested fine...

...and those on really big wages will pay a lawyer to get them off (remember Mr A Ferguson ?)...

...and the rest of us in the middle will pay more, because the system's too complicated to really understand...

...yeah, I'm all for that one ! :rolleyes:

OK, lets just say I don't agree.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Fining as a % of net income would actually be far fairer than the current system. Afterall an exec will probably not even notice a £60 fine, whereas one of these low income types with excessively fast 34mp cars that could be half a weeks wage. Hardly balance and fair at the moment.


Everyone gets fined the same, that seems fair to me.

Originally posted by Cyclone
unreasonably fast being capable of doing 34 mph?

Fining as a % of net income would actually be far fairer than the current system. Afterall an exec will probably not even notice a £60 fine, whereas one of these low income types with excessively fast 34mp cars that could be half a weeks wage. Hardly balance and fair at the moment.

Variable points and fines are already being introduced, so it's a bit late to suggest it. I think they only go up though from 3, not from 1.
And the points system already addresses the repeat offender. Fourth time and they loose their license.

However, a low income speeder could arrange to pay his fine at - what is it? A fiver a week or less? If he can afford to run a car he can afford to pay the fine. Quite honestly, suffering for a week and losing half your income won't harm them - there have been times when I've had 20-30 for a couple and cats to live on for a week. It's not hard. Just no fags, beer, petrol or dope.

At the same time you're caught speeding, check the records for Tax and Insurance - if none found just confiscate and crush the car, if owned by the speeder.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
However, a low income speeder could arrange to pay his fine at - what is it? A fiver a week or less? If he can afford to run a car he can afford to pay the fine. Quite honestly, suffering for a week and losing half your income won't harm them - there have been times when I've had 20-30 for a couple and cats to live on for a week. It's not hard. Just no fags, beer, petrol or dope.

At the same time you're caught speeding, check the records for Tax and Insurance - if none found just confiscate and crush the car, if owned by the speeder.

Joe

fine, in that case someone on 50k a year can manage to pay a fine of £400, otherwise they'll just (not paraphrasing you here Jo, an earlier post) bomb round in there merc secure in the knowledge that 1 hrs work will more than cover the cost of the fine.

My point was that people on a high income can view the fine as irrelevant as it stands, whereas low income people (who are not presumably all theives) it will have a larger impact on.

How is it fair for the low income person to be punished to a greater degree, which is what happens if we look at % disposable income that is taken in a fine.

Re: paying it back slowly. Not a fixed penalty notice, only if you go to court.

Originally posted by Cyclone
fine, in that case someone on 50k a year can manage to pay a fine of £400, otherwise they'll just (not paraphrasing you here Jo, an earlier post) bomb round in there merc secure in the knowledge that 1 hrs work will more than cover the cost of the fine.

My point was that people on a high income can view the fine as irrelevant as it stands, whereas low income people (who are not presumably all theives) it will have a larger impact on.

How is it fair for the low income person to be punished to a greater degree, which is what happens if we look at % disposable income that is taken in a fine.

Re: paying it back slowly. Not a fixed penalty notice, only if you go to court.

I'm sorry, if you can't afford it then take more care.

If you're wealthier and rely on your car for your job then getting a few points will soon start your employer worrying about your judgement. The prospect of losing your job / reputation might have an effect on you as well.

Yes, it's hard when poor people get hit with fines, but again, if you can't afford it don't do it.

It may sound hard but those people with the low levels of disposable income represent the sort of people I was bought up with, and I do appreciate the impact it can have, but, when it comes to the wire, you've broken the law and there is a penalty to pay.

Does anyone know the statistics of how speeders break down by social class and income? That might help us get to better grips with exactly WHO speeds and whether a sldiing scale would make a difference.

joe

so your saying that if you can afford it you don't need to bother taking care?

Maybe the fine should be higher then, sod the poor people at least that way the well off will also be concerned.

i'm not interested in making it easier for poor people, i just think it would be more of a deterant if it slid up the scale for the more well off.
Personally a £30 or £60 fine once a month wouldn't bother me. Once a week wouldn't be a disaster.
So if it's not a deterant for me (and i don't earn 50k) then it's certainly not for the better paid amongst us.

you broken the law and there's a penalty to pay is a rather circular argument since we are discussing what that penalty should be.

Make the penalty say a flat 50 hours community service.
Forget money. When people have to give up a substantial amount of time they'll think twice about doing it again.
And it doesnt involve means testing.

Nomme

Originally posted by Cyclone
so your saying that if you can afford it you don't need to bother taking care?

Maybe the fine should be higher then, sod the poor people at least that way the well off will also be concerned.



Why should people who have better paid jobs suffer more for the same offence though? The whole point behind law is that it is dealt with in a uniform way. Everyone is seen as the same whether they be male, female, white, black, rich, poor or anything else. Say I earn £50k (I dont, far far from it), why shouldnt I feel annoyed if some little cretin who spent his childhood smoking at school and getting nowhere gets caught at the same speed. Just because I chose to work hard and do well, why should chav boy in his nova get away with a lesser fine when we are both caught at 40 in a 30? Just because someone earns more, maybe they have worked harder.

The point is, you cant just say, oh he earns less therefore should pay less. Its the same offence.

Originally posted by Mooseyb
The point is, you cant just say, oh he earns less therefore should pay less. Its the same offence.

Agreed. A criminal is a criminal irrespective of their background.

(P.s. I know motoring offences aren't seen as criminal)

I've followed this thread for a few days and even made a few contributions to it but I have to say it's going a little too far now.

Taxes are mandatory. What your father has to pay was as a result of his speeding. So the answer is no, it's not a stealth tax. It's a penalty for his criminal behaviour. He broke the law and got caught.

Why do you think he’s above the law and should get away with crimes that others are penalised for?

I'm sorry that most of the posters aren't rallying round and supporting you but it seems that the majority of us take responsibility for our own actions and expect your father to do the same.

Originally posted by Mooseyb
Why should people who have better paid jobs suffer more for the same offence though? The whole point behind law is that it is dealt with in a uniform way. Everyone is seen as the same whether they be male, female, white, black, rich, poor or anything else. Say I earn £50k (I dont, far far from it), why shouldnt I feel annoyed if some little cretin who spent his childhood smoking at school and getting nowhere gets caught at the same speed. Just because I chose to work hard and do well, why should chav boy in his nova get away with a lesser fine when we are both caught at 40 in a 30? Just because someone earns more, maybe they have worked harder.

The point is, you cant just say, oh he earns less therefore should pay less. Its the same offence.
...and back to the original post (in a way), why would a 72 year old pensioner, who has been frugal all thier life and has a good pension, pay more than the equivalent 72 year old who had a whale of a time spending all thier wages as they earned them ?

Originally posted by InvalidUser
Why do you think he’s above the law and should get away with crimes that others are penalised for?


At which point did I have say he should get away with it?

The only argument I have ever put forward is that someone travelling at say 49mph receives the same punishment as, in theory, someone travelling at 31mph. Similarly, because we are talking about people actually being able to live why should someone on 100K per year be fined the same as someone on 5K for year.

Can I just add one other point for the debate on the previous page. I would really suggest that the threat of taking a license off a "chav in his boy racer nova" would have far more impact than a fine of any size. To a pensioner, the threat of a fine has far more impact than the loss of his license. A boy racer will not get done for doing 34 mph. A pensioner will.

Remember as well most pensioners have worked most of their lives. Most have saved and have a small pension. Do you honestly think they could live on £79 a week or whatever it is they get?

I think the most sweeping statement I have read from one poster was that they have no money now because they smoked and drank it all away when they were working. Brilliant that!!

my point is at the moment that the well off person suffers less. It may be the same flat figure, but £30 is nothing to a well off person, ergo they suffer less.
A % of income system would be far fairer, everyone looses the same proportion of money that way.
Although I like the suggestion of community service, although 50 hours is quite steep. 5 might be more reasonable for such a victimless oft committed infraction.

Originally posted by Mooseyb
Why should people who have better paid jobs suffer more for the same offence though? The whole point behind law is that it is dealt with in a uniform way. Everyone is seen as the same whether they be male, female, white, black, rich, poor or anything else. Say I earn £50k (I dont, far far from it), why shouldnt I feel annoyed if some little cretin who spent his childhood smoking at school and getting nowhere gets caught at the same speed. Just because I chose to work hard and do well, why should chav boy in his nova get away with a lesser fine when we are both caught at 40 in a 30? Just because someone earns more, maybe they have worked harder.

The point is, you cant just say, oh he earns less therefore should pay less. Its the same offence.

Paying more because you earn more would be a hard thing to get working. Think about it, the police would have to send a means testing form with the summons and people would keep filling them in wrong, or not at all. It would create yet more paperwork for what can be a minimal breach of the law.

I'd rather they poured more money into catching proper nasty b**tards who rob, rape, maim, murder and so on....

cameras aren't so good at catching those though, nor are the fines so lucrative.

Basic means testing is quite easy.
The inland revenue knows exactly how much you earnt in the last calendar year, base it on that.

Originally posted by Cyclone
cameras aren't so good at catching those though, nor are the fines so lucrative.

Basic means testing is quite easy.
The inland revenue knows exactly how much you earnt in the last calendar year, base it on that.

Wouldnt surprise me then, when these ID cards come in, if they did that.

But the inland revenue arent as high tech as you think. One branch might know ya, but another wont have a clue....

Originally posted by dinp
Paying more because you earn more would be a hard thing to get working. Think about it, the police would have to send a means testing form with the summons and people would keep filling them in wrong, or not at all. It would create yet more paperwork for what can be a minimal breach of the law.



....and the scrounging toerags who are terminally on the dole would only declare their 'legal' income, not their illegal smuggled fag/nicked goods/drugs sales/backhand payment income. Which, I bet, would be double (at least) what a nurse receives!

Then think about the poor sod who is willing to work his/her backside off doing overtime. They'd end up being penalised more than their colleagues who turn round and say, "Stuff the overtime."

Originally posted by dinp
Wouldnt surprise me then, when these ID cards come in, if they did that.

But the inland revenue arent as high tech as you think. One branch might know ya, but another wont have a clue....

I have a fairly good idea how 'high tech' the inland revenue is, i've worked on and with some of it's systems before.

Not sure if its been mentioned on here before but found this interesting website:

www.pepipoo.com

"To reveal to the ordinary UK motorist, clearly and concisely, how the police and judiciary deal with allegations of speeding in real life, and to provide the information motorists need to defend themselves"

Just out of interest, has anyone seen or read this book ?
http://www.uk-driving-secrets.com/beat/menu.aspx?afl=10972

Written by an ex-copper and supposed to give inside knowledge of how to beat the system etc.

You could ring Police HQ and ask if they would kindly send pictures of the car in question as there may be some doubt as to the car/date/time. South Yorkshire Police are usually very helpful with this even though they don't have to give you pic copies unless it goes to court.

Which camera/location was it?

In response to those who point out that a car travelling at x% less than the speed limit is y% less likely to kill a pedestrian, might one ask what the pedestrian is doing in the carriageway in the first place ? Would the money spent on a speed camera not be better used, from a road safety point of view, on keeping vehicles and pedestrians apart ?

Let's try and solve the problem, not raise revenue. Or area dead and maimed pedestrians okay so long as the Chancellor gets his cut ?

Some interesting stats for you all - there's a reason other than money for keeping people driving at the correct speed limit - it's due to pedestrian and passenger swafety - check the points at the bottom!

http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/briefings/statistics_uk.htm

"70% of road crashes happen on built-up (urban) roads, but over a half of road deaths happen on non-built-up (rural) roads"

Back to the original post - it may only have been 4mph more but it doubles the chance of killing somone - especially as the older you are the slower your reactions are!!

"Impact speed determines the severity of injury, e.g. at 35 mph you are twice as likely to kill someone as you are at 30 mph (DETR 1999). 90% of pedestrians hit by a car travelling at 30 mph will be seriously injured. Nearly half of them will be killed (New Directions in Speed Management, DETR, 2000). The change from mainly survivable injuries to mainly fatal injuries takes place at speeds of between about 30 and 40 mph, (Ashton, 1981)."

correct is the point that's up for debate.

you've fallen into the trap of assuming that pedestrian accidents happen without the car slowing at all. Travelling at 34 mph and braking will mean that you hit the pedestrian at a fraction higher speed than if you'd started breaking from 30.

0.6% of pedestrian rta's are actually fatal.

There's also the fact that the camera in this case was situated shortly before the limit changed to the national one for that road and in an area and at a time when it's highly implausible that there were any pedestrians about, and thus the safety aspect is clearly just a rouse.

Originally posted by Cyclone
There's also the fact that the camera in this case was situated shortly before the limit changed to the national one for that road and in an area and at a time when it's highly implausible that there were any pedestrians about, and thus the safety aspect is clearly just a rouse.
This all depends on what sort of mobile camera it was, and we don't know that part.

The vast majority of mobile vans take the reading of then front of the vehicle, thus although the van was parked "just inside the limit" the reading would have been taken a considerable distance into the 30 zone, maybe in the built up area itself.

This is the sort that SYP used when taking the readings at Ringinglow, the van was parked at the boundary of the limit, but the readings were taken "near" the dangerous junction.

Of course it may not have been this type, and we'll probably never find out for sure.

There seem to be four distinct issues being discussed here.

1) How accurate is the measurement of speed
2) Are the limits as they stand fair
3) Is it right that transgressors should be fined
4) What should be done with the proceeds

I would think that if issues 2 and 1 are sorted out then the other issues would sort themselves out. ie if you think that a law is fair then you are unlikely to be very upset at being punished for breaking it.

unless you think that the law is fair but the punishment excessive.

Thats the problem with fines I guess. If you are a millionaire a fine of £1000 is not going to mean as much to you as if you are on an average wage.

another incentive to get a good job and a decent wage!

Just a quick post to say that I haven't been on the forum all weekend, and I was expected this thread to be long gone. Hooray for speed cameras, and the long living rants they bring!

Originally posted by Yodameister
Thats the problem with fines I guess. If you are a millionaire a fine of £1000 is not going to mean as much to you as if you are on an average wage.

hence my earlier post about fines as a % of gross or net income.

Originally posted by Cyclone
hence my earlier post about fines as a % of gross or net income.

Thats a good point, but the difficulties are the same as the way very rich people avoid paying tax - they hide their incomes.

In theory its a good idea though if it could be enforced effectively.

I made a point on a different thread regarding loopholes in the law relating to speeding fines, figure i may as well make the same point on here. Upon recieving a fixed penalty notice, the law requires that it must be sent back identifying the driver of the vehicle caught committing the offence. However, there is currently no legal requirement to sign the said fixed penalty notice. Therefore, theoretically, if one returns the notice and indicates a preference for the case to be heard by a magistrate, but do not sign the notice, in one's abscence, the prosecution are unable to use the notice which identifies you as the driver of the vehicle, as admissable evidence in court. Even if the police come to your door and request you sign it, they are unable to enforce that you do if you decline. Make sense?:confused:

Yes, but what happens then is that the case proceeds against the person named on the DVLA register as the owner of the vehicle, that person is given a trial date before magistrates, or alternatively pleads guilty, and the prosecution applies for additional costs.

There is no way out of a speeding fine. I promise you. I deal with this day in day out. All these solutions are urban myths. That goes for all these stories about refusing to name the driver, sending a cheque for 1p too much, and all the others.

Originally posted by Mooseyb
Yes, but what happens then is that the case proceeds against the person named on the DVLA register as the owner of the vehicle, that person is given a trial date before magistrates, or alternatively pleads guilty, and the prosecution applies for additional costs.

There is no way out of a speeding fine. I promise you.

Christine and Neil Hamilton got away with it last year. So have a few footballers. I suppose it depends how much you can spend on a lawyer.

i dunno if this has already been posted, but the following article may be of interest to some.
http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=9689

GATSOS OVER-READ YOUR SPEED

Monday 10th January

Court case could prove thousands of speeders innocent

Gatso-based evidence could be responsible for convicting thousands of innocent motorists, according to research by David Edgar, a retired electronics engineer and former professional inventor.

The Gatso speed cameras he has investigated over-estimated motorists' speed by up to 25 per cent because the time between the two flash photography images, which constitutes legal evidence on which prosecution is based, was much longer than specified.

Edgar's 35-year unblemished driving record is under threat from prosecution by West Midlands police for allegedly driving 41 mph in a 30 mph zone. Wallsall-based Edgar has pleaded not guilty to the driving offence and will defend himself in the Birmingham Magistrates’ Court on Thursday 13 January 2005.

After receiving his summons, Edgar became suspicious of the accuracy of the Gatso-based evidence and developed a laser aligned, optically triggered digital timer that measures to an accuracy within 1/100th of a second the time lapse between the two flashes produced by a Gatso speed camera.

He became concerned about the accuracy of the Gatso speed camera when his requests for disclosure about how speed cameras are calibrated for accuracy were ignored by both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. His requests for information sent to Gatsometer in the Netherlands and UK were also ignored, as was his formal application to Birmingham Magistrates’ Court to force disclosure.

Edgar said, “I really felt they had something to hide so I decided to investigate the critical timing accuracy."

Having tested the opto-digital timer on a number of Gatso speed camera sites including Newtown Birmingham, Walsall and Cannock area, Edgar soon discovered that well over 80 per cent of them were inaccurate. In particular, there were serious timing errors between the two flashes which are supposed to flash at exactly half a second (500 milliseconds) apart.

Edgar's tests show the timings are anything but accurate. Typically they are 630 milliseconds apart, which changes legal evidence about how far a vehicle has travelled. In particular, it creates the illusion that a vehicle has travelled much further between flashes than it actually did -- some 25 per cent further.

For instance a vehicle travelling at 35 mph would have travelled an extra 2.03 metres when the timing between the two flashes is 630 milliseconds, and that puts the vehicle in the next set of parallel line markings which are spaced two metres apart.

Since these serious inaccuracies clearly affect the reliability of the actual recorded speed of a vehicle, it suggests that photographic evidence cannot be relied on by the prosecution, as reasonable doubt exists concerning the accuracy of that evidence.

Having now investigated and researched the Gatso method of speed camera entrapment the police and CPS are relying on Mr Edgar said “ I have also discovered some other disturbing facts that affect the accuracy and reliability of the entire measuring system, these will be brought to the attention of the Birmingham Magistrates Court on Thursday 13 January 2005, come along it should be an interesting day in court.”

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign commented, "If Mr Edgar's claims are proven then almost everyone convicted by a Gatso speed camera will be able to apply to have their case reopened. I have spoken to Mr Edgar and his extensive research seems unequivocal."