Speed Camera - Have I Been Caught?

1st thing is to contact the relevant camera enforcement unit asap - you are up against a legal clock now - ring them and explain - follow up with a letter, and see where you go from there.

don't rule out the use of a soilicitor either.

Just my honest advice

Andy is absolutely right, time is important because if you do not get the matter sorted out quickly then you could be more trouble for "late payment".

Also check out if the camera is directional, i.e. can they prove you were going over 30mph in either direction? The two images which show which way you were heading at the time of the offence.

Good luck, and get rid of the Chelsea tractor unless you are a farmer or horse jumper.

Jono

Lee

I have always wonderd what the result of such an incident would be, I thought that they would be clever enough to figure that it was the other car.

I think you are correct in respect of the fact that there are two phots a set time apart, and as I inderstand it they can deduce your speed from the distance you car has moved in the 2 photos.

On the notice from the police you get the option of contesting it, and it looks like you need to do so in tis instance.

You may need to go to court, but it sounds worthwhile in this instance.

I got done recently doing 37 in a 30 (the lime house tunnel at 2.00am).

I did all the research on the various loopholes to avoid it, but then decided that if I did the crime (which I did) I may as well do the time. 3 points and £60 later, I could not realy argue as we have speed limits for a reason, and it has slowed my driving down, not that I drove that fast before.

However if you are not the guilty one here you may as well not have the book thrown at you.

Good luck with your defence.

Simon

Hey.

What I don't like is on the notice it says that if you wish to fight it don't pay, you have to wait until the pay time has expired.

Its like they are daring you to do it, fuckers.

quote:

I could not realy argue as we have speed limits for a reason,

I'm not so trusting of the Authorities' motives. They got sixty quid out of you. Job done. They did it fair and square, didn't they? At 2 am.

I guess you can derive some comfort from believing you got what you deserved and that it was for your own good.

A mate of mine got off because they got his address slightly wrong on the NIP and shortened his first name to the diminuative version (eg. Fred instead of Frederick).

He was guilty and it would have been a fair cop otherwise. However, they deserved to lose the sixty quid (plus court costs) for their lack of thoroughness and accuracy.

The same applies in the above instance except that the only crime committed by the driver was his choice of overpriced fanny cage monstrosity - substitute the prefix X for an M and you've got a proper car.

Oooh, Steve lets press 'repeat' here shall we?

Like I've said before, the truth is in the microdetail, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by i am simon 2:
but then decided that if I did the crime (which I did) I may as well do the time. 3 points and £60 later...

Simon

Simon,

Your honesty is commendable and I went through the same process. However, it doesn't end there I'm afraid. When you get your insurance renewal (and you have to tell your insurance company otherwise your policy is invalidated), you will find they increase your premium by 33%. Well, my insurance company did mine anyway. It is not just the councils that sieze this moneymaking opportunity it seems. Over the next three/four years, you may find that £60 is merely the very thin end of an alarmingly large wedge.

I did a 'fair cop' like you and paid and took the points several years ago now, and I gather that the insurance rip-off situation has eased somewhat since then - mainly because these cameras are making criminals out of about 9% of the entire population. So on renewal time you may fare better than I did, but it will undoubtedly pay you to shop around.

Little wonder people look for the loopholes. Having been the victim of an uninsured driver to the tune of £1200 last year, I think this is a car crime that the authorities should clamp down on, but of course it wouldn't be quite so lucrative.

And good luck to Lee fighting your injustice.


Rod

quote:

Having been the victim of an uninsured driver to the tune of £1200 last year, I think this is a car crime that the authorities should clamp down on, but of course it wouldn't be quite so lucrative.

Rod,

You make a very valid point, here. Uninsured drivers also realistically account for a 25% premium hike in ALL our car insurace premiums.

Steve

I am also sceptical from time to time about the motive for some speed limits, and the lack of discretion in cases such as mine (2.00 am).

However I would imagine that if EVERYONE drove at the speed limit ALL of the time, there would be fewer accidents on the roads.

Now the problem here is that there are some occasions where one may not increase the risk of an accident, one example might be doing 37 in the limehouse tunnel at 2.oo am, a judjement I took upon myself to make. Now I might trust myself to make that call, and I may have been correct, however the spotty teenager in his race prepared Nova doing 60 past a school at 3.30 in the afternoon, may also have justified to himself that he is safe. In fact everyone thinks they are a better than averae driver, and therfore they are safe, but this is not the case, and there are thse amoungst us who are not fit to decide (maybe me included).

On this basis I think we must stick with the blanket approac with no leaway, it is the only way to enforce it.

And anyway how much faster can you get somwhere by speeding? Not much.

I think sticking close to the speed limit is a fair price to pay for better road saftey, and if we all did it there may be fewer tradgedies each day.

Now then, who votes for increasing the speed limit on motorways to 90mph. When 70 was cosen, cars were slower, had worse brakes poor handling and few saftey features........

quote:

mainly because these cameras are making criminals out of about 9% of the entire population.

Which equates to approximately 20 % of all drivers. This government is incredibly stupid beyond their cynical taxation policy on making due progress. How can they achieve their objective of making speeding as socially unacceptable as drink driving when they are criminalising such a large minority of the population? It kind of has the opposite effect.

"You got done for speeding, big deal, who hasn't!" is hardly the reaction towards a social pariah.


However, I suspect this attempt at (old-style Labour) social engineeering on the public highway is just a smokescreen for revenue raising, modal shift and curtailment of freedom of mobility of the masses over the long term.

Many insurance companies in a competitive market who are mindful of the fact that speed doesn't necessarily kill and clean licenses are becoming a bit of a rarety will let you notch up up to two SP30s (six points) before they load your premium.

quote:

However I would imagine that if EVERYONE drove at the speed limit ALL of the time, there would be fewer accidents on the roads.

The number of accidents could fall theoretically by approximately 3% - the 3% of all accidents that are currently caused by inappropriate speed above a posted limit.

Meanwhile 17% of all accidents are caused by inattention due to tiredness. With lengthened journey times and the sense of detachment derived from being forced to drive slower than your judgement would otherwise tell you, in order to comply with a posted limit set too low for the conditions, incidents of driver inattention can only increase.

"Speed kills" is an easy truism contradicted by statistics where truth is a casualty is pursuit of entirely different agendas.

Steve

This is quite interesting, and we have raised slightly differnt arguments.

At no point did I say that I agree with the speed limit, in fact I proposed 90mph on the motorways, and as you say one is more alert when traveling at 90 than at 70, particularly in todays modern cars.

So I would agree that there may be a case to increase speed limits, but there is difference between that, and condoning speeding.

Obviously on local roads, we should stick to 30mph, if in fact the government ad on tv at the moment is true (If you hit me at 40mph...).

In France they vary the limit on motorways if it is raining, that I agree with.

quote:

So I would agree that there may be a case to increase speed limits, but there is difference between that, and condoning speeding.

I guess this is true because it rewards the government and local councils for their oppressive policy on speed by putting more money into their coffers. If nobody sped there would be no revenue.

However, this would invariably result in speed limits being cut further in order to redress the revenue shortfall.

The revenue raised from cameras is currently the equivalent of 2p on the price of a litre of diesel or petrol.

quote:

Obviously on local roads, we should stick to 30mph, if in fact the government ad on tv at the moment is true (If you hit me at 40mph...).

But if I'm paying attention at 40 mph I'll brake, swerve and miss you. If I fail to miss you the impact speed will certainly be less than 30mph.

If I'm driving along as detached passenger at the wheel complacent in my compliance with the speed limit, I'll hit you at 30mph. At 30 mph you may still die.

It's never that simple.

I agree re. the lower speed limit in the rain on French motorways. However, I believe it is more important to double your distance between you and the vehicle in front than it is simply to drop your speed.

From the Association of British Drivers' website:

Today's announcement of the 2005 road crash figures show clearly that current road safety policy needs to change, says road safety group the Association of British Drivers. Despite millions spent on speed reduction measures, pedestrian deaths are unchanged from 2004; just as many drivers are dying; and cyclist fatalities increased by 10%. Just 20 fewer people died on the UK's roads.

The ABD believes these figures — coming close after Oxford University statistics showing no real reductions in road injury statistics — are profoundly damning of current road safety policy.

Mark McArthur-Christie, the ABD's Director of Policy said today
"Since the early 1990s, policy has majored on compliance with speed limits above all else and now we're paying the price in lives. We have a road safety policy that is a lame one-trick pony, simply because it fails to recognise the complexity of the driving and riding tasks."
The ABD believes that by concentrating almost exclusively on external speed controls (bumps, lower limits, cameras) vital aspects of road safety have been missed. The group argues that before we can have safer roads, we need to recognise three key things:
that driving and riding safely are extremely complex mental and physical processes;
that the massive concentration on external controls has had little impact on safe driving;
and that those external controls have very serious side effects.
McArthur-Christie comments
"These figures show that we need to completely change the way we think about road safety. It simply cannot be imposed from the outside with humps, bumps, cameras and lower limits. These are all effective in making drivers legally compliant, but not safe. If we want safe roads, we must recognise that safe driving and riding are complex mental processes that can't be summed up by "speed kills"."
The ABD believes that the best way of saving casualties lies in engineering out road hazards, better driver education and a more enlightened approach to enforcement. Its full safety Manifesto can be found on www.abd.org.uk.

Mmm,

I am in favour of speed reduction measures where the particular road geography lends itself to this - to reduce injury crashes only. I am not for revenue only measures.

I am also in favour of random testing of drivers, against a set standard of competancy, to ensure their skills are up-to-date and good. If not, then they need development similar to the NDIS etc.

We has spoken both humourously and seriously re driving manner on here and other threads, and this is the crux point. Driving manner is curbed by physical law visibility i.e. traffic cops.

Driver over-confidance/error/lack of experience/impatience accounts for far more crashes that exceeding the speed limit. But if you, for every 100 lives, manage to save 4 due to speed reduction measures 'as well', then there are four more folk out there etc etc.

Finally, I am for common sense which, judgin on what I've seen recently on all manner of roads, takes second fiddle to lack of manners and impatience.

Off to do me ironing now...

quote:

But if you, for every 100 lives, manage to save 4 due to speed reduction measures 'as well', then there are four more folk out there etc etc.

But what if, in saving your 4, you've lost a further 7 through inattention brought on by driver fatigue?

quote:

But what if, in saving your 4, you've lost a further 7 through inattention brought on by driver fatigue?

You have no proof of that, do you?

The inattention argument is flawed anyway.

In what way is it flawed?

The Italian government certainly believes in it.

The italian government will believe anything if the price is right

Driver fatigue is brought about by a number of factors.

Concentration in itself is one, and going at a 10mph less speed (which is what we are talking about here isn't it), when the limit is 70mph is going to induce more driver fatigue?

Steve,
You are either in a fit state to drive given the prevailing conditions, or you are not. I suggest that if some folk left five minutes earlier then that would eradicate a surprising number of: exceeding the speed limit per se; and 'sorry officer, it was my fault the collison took place, but i was late'...

Prevailing conditions we can argue till the cows come home, but nontheless you are either fit or you are not. If you get tired, then do someting about it.

Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act sums it up nicely: drive without due care and attention, or reasonable consideration for 'other' road users. Its not just about the individual. Others are involved too.

And please don't come back at me re camera's - I have made my stance/opinion on their use quite clear. Driver behaviour is not just about speed - is it?

quote:

Concentration in itself is one, and going at a 10mph less speed (which is what we are talking about here isn't it), when the limit is 70mph is going to induce more driver fatigue?

I wasn't really thinking of the 70 mph limit, which with speedo accuracy adjustments and tolerances combined, actually permit you to travel at an indicated 80. I was thinking more of the 40 in a 30 on those wide urban roads (that are even designated as urban clearways) that used to carry a 40 limit that's been cut to 30, and where frequently drivers are getting prosecuted doing for 37, i.e: an indicated 40 on their speedos.

A camera partnership instructor for those taking "driver awareness courses" recently pointed out to me that drivers generally feel more comfortable travelling at 40 on such roads but those extra feet-per-second are what count... Under such circumstances I assert the stance that travelling at the optimum concentration/stimulation speed of 40 may actually be safer for the purposes of being suitably equipped to avoid collisions with peds stepping out into the road.

The above, of course does not apply on narrower roads with a greater incidence of hidden junctions, parked cars, shops schools at the start/finish of the school day and other hazards that should afford an element of driver judgement call to choose to travel possibly well below the permitted 30 mph limit.

Avoiding circular arguments, and acknowledging your stance on speed limits not being imposed solely for the purposes of revenue collection, I ask you if you would happily enforce a speed limit that you may acknowledge as existing for such purposes and not for those of safety?

Steve,

The speed limit is legally enforceable, and is 'the limit' - the max you should travel on that road. I am not aware of any roads in Notts that have had a limit imposed for revenue purposes only.

In fact, I did the research, and checked the before and after stats, as I am thoroughtly familiar with most if not all the roads where speed detection was/is being used, and funnily enough there is a reduction in the number of collisions on those roads.

I am not familiar with the criteria application in other counties, so would not comment on their validity.

I am happy therefore to enforce, where needed, with due use of discretion, the limits applicable in Notts.

Andy c!

Thankyou Andy. I think you've covered all bases.