Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Aug 06, 2020 14:04

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: 59MPH in a 30MPH zone
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 17:18 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 16:55
Posts: 7
Hey guys.
I got caught doing 59MPH in a 30MPH zone - I aint proud, I was foolish, I was still a new driver then. I have learnt my lesson though.
That was back February. the 12th. I got the NIP on the 22nd.
As always my luck, one more day and I would have got away with it but the Summons came today.
What are my chances like? I recently started my first and only job, a refrigeration engineer in April, and now have a van and also am on callout, so I'm vital to my company so if I lose my licence I'm screwed and my life will be in tatters, driving means everything to me.
They've sent evidence, photos. I was caught on a mobile unit, at night so I didnt see the damn thing at all.
One thing that does puzzle me though is that "ERROR 2" meant to be there? Or can it be at fault or something?
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/71/dscf4080bw9.jpg
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/2199/dscf4081kn2.jpg
If not doesn't really matter, just caught my attention.
Thing is I live in Bristol and the hearing is in Taunton, and a month away, so I'm worried sick. I can't afford a solictor with the money I'm on so thats out of the window.
Best thing to do guys? :cry:
I dont wanna lose my licence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 18:50 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
The Error 2 won't mean anything useful to you. It’s not an equipment fault, the operator simply didn't get a clean shot on your plate so he tried again.
If the zoom wasn't altered between the two photos then it would look as if you really were going jolly fast. I can only assume you aren't contesting the claimed speed.

You should make your case as to why a ban would seriously affect your career chances. If you have any dependants then be sure to mention it to the court.
You seem repentant, if you can convey that to the court then you might just keep your licence, albeit with 5 points and a huge fine.

Do you like Takeshi's Castle? :)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 18:58 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 16:55
Posts: 7
Thanks - yes I really regret doing this, and have completly changed my driving style now, not that I drove like that everywhere anyway.
Would going to court in person be better than a mitigating letter?

And, yes I do like Takeshi's Castle :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 19:19 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Takeshi wrote:
Would going to court in person be better than a mitigating letter?

I would say yes. Just being there shows you are taking it seriously.
A letter is just a bunch of symbols. You can convey so much more by communicating it directly.

Takeshi wrote:
And, yes I do like Takeshi's Castle :lol:

I love it, it's so funny :hehe: I wish we had stuff like that in this country, unfortunately we're too nannied.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:01 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
You say you were a new driver when you were caught. there are different rules for new drivers.

Were you within 2 years of first passing a test ( a motorcycle test would count even if you were caught driving a car) on the day you were caught?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Exceeding the limit
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 23:03 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 14:48
Posts: 244
Location: Warrington ex Sandgrounder[Southport]
Just to clarify a point you made about the "14" day period, sorry mate but the law says the authorities have up to "6" months from the date of the offence to find you or the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned to issue an NIP.

As one post says if you are a new driver you could possibly face a ban (if had a licence for less than 2 years) so I would definitely attend court on this one to plead for your licence but I think a ban is usually automatic unless exceptional circumstances so you have nothing to lose by attending if necessary as you could explain extreme hardship etc. if you lose your licence (which may mean loss of job etc.).

Good luck

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 02:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Takeshi wrote:
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/71/dscf4080bw9.jpg
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/2199/dscf4081kn2.jpg


Those two photos are 1 second apart. The first shows the cross hairs well up the boot lid. The second - with the measurement - shows the cross hairs on the numberplate. This is strong evidence that the aim point changed during the measurement period. This is a perfect set up for a 'slip effect' error. Unfortunately in this case it seems to me that any slip effect would tend to reduce the speed recorded rather than increase it, but it may still be sufficient to argue 'reasonable doubt'.

You next steps should be to learn about 'slip effect' and "lti20.20" via google search, and to get along to Pepipoo who will likely be able to assist far more with legal defences than we can.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:51 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
SafeSpeed wrote:
... strong evidence ...

I think that's too strong a description. There are 1.22 seconds between the photos; the measurement period would have been during the last 0.34 seconds (plus a bit for some 'timout display'). The video could well show the panning had stopped halfway between the shown frames.

Also, assuming correct alignment of the video crosshairs with the beam (always a rash assumption - unless you're a magistrate), the beam divergence would mean that the beam would have just hit the retro-reflective plate during the first shown frame (using the standard width of the plate as a length reference); a strike on the plate is a cert for the second photo. IMO, a significant and roughly constant portion of the beam will have hit the VRM throughout the measurement period. The plate is the first and most reflective surface so the gun will acquire it – no chance of slip. If the panning was of a constant rate between the two frames, the measurement would have started with the beam centred on the plate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 13:12 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Oddly enough: assuming an unchanged optical zoom, using the relative change of distance between the rear lamps, my maths puts the speed at 43.1mph!

Can anyone else confirm what I’ve assumed and done are correct?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Exceeding the limit
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 20:59 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
Stormin wrote:
As one post says if you are a new driver you could possibly face a ban (if had a licence for less than 2 years) so I would definitely attend court on this one to plead for your licence but I think a ban is usually automatic unless exceptional circumstances so you have nothing to lose by attending if necessary as you could explain extreme hardship etc. if you lose your licence (which may mean loss of job etc.).

The new driver rules kick in when someone, within 2 years of passing their FIRST test, reaches 6 points or more.



For the OP, if he gets 5 or less he will be able to keep on driving.

If the court disqualify him, it would be for a maximum of 56 days (assuming no previous bans or points) after which he gets his licence back.
In neither of those cases do the new driver rules apply.


If he gets 6 points the new driver rules will apply.
The court will NOT ban him. At some time in the next few weeks he will get a letter from the DVLA stating a date from which his licence is revoked. He will need to apply for a new licence.
If he drives after the revocation date and before he has physical possession of his new licence he will be guilty of driving without a licence (NOT driving while disqualified although the law on this may change in the near future).
When his new licence arrives it will be a provisional, so he can drive with L plates, a supervising driver and suitable insurance. As soon as he passes a test (both parts) he can tear up the L plates.

There is no appeal against a DVLA decision to revoke a licence in these circumstances. Courts have been directed not to reduce points to avoid revocation as it is will of parliament that such drivers should re-take a test.
So any attempt to mitigate down from 6 to 5 should fail. A succesful mitigation to avoid a disqualification could leave him with 6 points, and depending on waiting lists locally and the standard of his driving could take longer to be driving solo than serving a short ban.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:19 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:03
Posts: 7
Alternatively you could just buy my solicitors letters from me and relieve yourself of a massive burden. Points and fine dropped, 100% guaranteed or money back.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=190147807217&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=009

_________________
Pukka Tingz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:27 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Better advice is free on pepipoo
Also may be selling legal advice whilst not legaly allowed to do so

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 13:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 16:37
Posts: 265
The OP states that the alleged offence took place on 12th February; and that the summons arrived on 21st August.

Importantly, somewhere on the summons there should be a date when the information was laid to issue the summons. This date must be with 6 months of the alleged offence (ie prior to 12th August) otherwise the summons is void and they are out of time to prosecute.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 19:30 
Offline
Suspended
Suspended

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 22:56
Posts: 88
nearly double the speed limit,

1 YOU ARE NOT vital to your company they would have replaced you if your silly driving had led to your death.

2 IF you need your licence keep to the limit, its that simple, you know the rules of the road.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 19:37 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 16:55
Posts: 7
Quote:
1 YOU ARE NOT vital to your company they would have replaced you if your silly driving had led to your death.

I am vital to my company - there all relatives of mine. And to find a decent engineer nowdays is hard, with all this college crap. So dont come stomping in here acting big when you've amassed 2 posts.

BOT:
I've sent off the form etc, going to attend court in person. Feel I can get my words across better that way :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 18:42 
Offline
Suspended
Suspended

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 22:56
Posts: 88
I am vital to my company - there all relatives of mine.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 00:09 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
safetyman wrote:
I am vital to my company - there all relatives of mine.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


i don't understand the humour......could you elucidate?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 17:42 
Offline
Suspended
Suspended

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 22:56
Posts: 88
:o :o :o :o :? :? :? :?

like you dont know


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 17:44 
Offline
Suspended
Suspended

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 22:56
Posts: 88
:o :o :o :o :? :? :? :?

like you dont know
:D :D :D :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 18:17 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
Nope,

thats twice and I still don't get it.

Am I being a bit thick here or are you just being obtuse?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.280s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]