Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Speeding Yet Again - They're Having A Laugh!

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

X