Speeding Yet Again - They're Having A Laugh!

[MobileB 10]

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!

[spiffymonkey 10]

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

[Whelk 11]

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.

[Cyclone 10]

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.

[Lurch 10]

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.

[NatalieSheff 10]

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

[Whelk 11]

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

[nick2 10]

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.

[Snook 10]

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.

[spiffymonkey 10]

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.

[Mooseyb 10]

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.

[NatalieSheff 10]

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