Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Speeding Tickets

Speed limits

I just cannot understand why trucks are now limited to 40mph on fast A roads, thus slowing everyone else down.[/QUOTE]

All vehicles over 7.5 tonnes are limited to 40 mph on single carriageway roads, nothing new there.
 
Ignore NIP. When they send a reminder, phone them and say you haven't received an NIP. They'll helpfully issue another. If it's a copy of the original, take it on the chin and pay it off and send in your licence to have the points added.
If however they issue a new one and the date of issue is more than 2 weeks after the date of the offence, keep it for evidence and send a photocopy back to them with "OUT OF TIME" scrawled across it in felt tip pen.
 
BTW onward facing speed cameras DO NOT get you

Not true, Truvelo and Watchman cameras photograph the front of the car. Speedcurb and Gatso photograph the rear.
You can set off a badly callibrated Gatso from the front but it won't be valid for a ticket.
 
Ignore NIP. When they send a reminder, phone them and say you haven't received an NIP. They'll helpfully issue another. If it's a copy of the original, take it on the chin and pay it off and send in your licence to have the points added.
If however they issue a new one and the date of issue is more than 2 weeks after the date of the offence, keep it for evidence and send a photocopy back to them with "OUT OF TIME" scrawled across it in felt tip pen.
I'm not sure this is good advice. You'd only get away with it once or twice, in any event, and police forces are getting much more clued-in on the various antics people use to get around the problem.

If someone's posting about it on the Internet, it's pretty likely that the police know it's being done. And making false statements to the police in this context counts as Officially Naughty.
 
I seem to have caused a bit of road rage here for which I apologise and I genuinely feel sorry for Global Stoner but I believe speeding fines should be quietly accepted and paid. Having driven for more than 30 years I know that people break the speed limit either because they let their concentration lapse or because they haven't grasped just how dangerous and anti-social it is. Either way, it's always the driver's responsibility.

If you're speeding and you're involved in an accident it'll be far worse, even if you were in full control of your car and didn't cause it yourself. I think if we are to save more lives then fines should be even higher.

ok so have you got any evidence what so ever that the financial impact of a fine has any corrilatory behaviour on the standard of driving.

In truth the fines are there because of an recognition that it's an easy target, no this is a poor motorists always beign picked on type response, it makes sense.

you have a million and 1 things to concentraite on when driving as a result some will in safe conditions be given a lower priority than others for example checking the speedo over watching the road. As cars have been modernised and internal road noise has been all but eliminated and as cars with smaller and smaller engines are more and more powerful in terms of accleration and performance we are gradually cocooned from the sensation or feedback of speed.

Removing this information detrimentally affects peoples driving, conversley it does improve passenger comfort. Don't beleive me do a simple experiment;

drive down a streach of dual carrage way from a point to a point resonably about 2 miles past it without looking at the speedo for the entire time when you go past you second point look down note the speed you are doing.

repeat this at night and try and match the speed again no looking at the speedo. even with street lighting illuminating the road you will be going faster at night because your visable perception is reduced significantly which decreases you perception of speed and of course any impending danger.

so that's speeding covered from a free floowing a/b/m road type situation. but how does this impact on why fining motorists is a soft target. Well we accept all vehciles are now safer for those inside and somewhat better for those on the outside than they have ever previously been, and that as a result of ever increasing safety people are removed a step from their driving

This is accepted, i mean who wants to drive in a noisey car or be driven in one what's also understood is that the other million and one things one couldbe doign rather than looking at a speedo are almost certainly of far greater significance you know looking at the road etc the relative assurance we get from from the peception of increased safety removes the fear of speeding or any of it's accisacted sensations.

this is then added to the level of perceptually unnessacerry speed limits on roads which are often arbitory misleading conflicting or confusing ( a matter of course when you have differnent groups responsible for different signs) mean people filter the information and have learned ( or been conditioned) to ignore the posted limit.

Our driving test in this country isn't hard, you are effectively given licence ( a right given with privledge status - like all rights if we're honest with ourselves about the power we have vs the power of the state ) with realatively short experince curves to use a vechiel.

Fines don't need to go up more money needs to be spent on the tutition in the first place. and that's not state cash that's privat individuals cash. You want to drive learn to do so propperly, be preparred to prove you have maintained the standard for a long period of time and be preparred to be tested regularlly.

but this would cost money to the privat individual which the state is reluctent to do as the income generated from driving is significant. So do you make the test harder or do you make cash from more likely (due to a lower standards) incidents which result as a common occurence of poorer education...

our current polices favour poorer driving skill better revenue streams over improved road craft fewer accidents...

and to my mind educationally crippling people to then make money of them is attacking a soft target it's set up to be so.
 
I'm not sure this is good advice. You'd only get away with it once or twice, in any event, and police forces are getting much more clued-in on the various antics people use to get around the problem.

If someone's posting about it on the Internet, it's pretty likely that the police know it's being done. And making false statements to the police in this context counts as Officially Naughty.

You are quite right here, though "once or twice" is enough, any more than that and you're a habitual speeder and really need to have a hard look at your driving anyway.
 
I agree with you Garfield about educating drivers in the first place and re-testing, but fines are in my opinion most certainly a deterent. As for checking your speedo being a distraction, I couldn't disagree more; is glancing in your mirror a distraction?

I've been a driver for more than 30 years and although I don't consider myself to be a particularly good driver I'm proud to be able to say that I've never caused an accident (touch wood) despite glancing at both my speedo and rear view mirror from time to time. I've also never been done for speeding.
 
I agree with you Garfield about educating drivers in the first place and re-testing, but fines are in my opinion most certainly a deterent. As for checking your speedo being a distraction, I couldn't disagree more; is glancing in your mirror a distraction?

I've been a driver for more than 30 years and although I don't consider myself to be a particularly good driver I'm proud to be able to say that I've never caused an accident (touch wood) despite glancing at both my speedo and rear view mirror from time to time. I've also never been done for speeding.
If we're REALLY fining people as a deterrent (I'm not sure we are, but I don't think it's about revenue-earning, either: I think that it is, purely and simply, a good way to be seen to be Doing Something about road accidents), then we need to close the loop between detection of an offence and telling the person they've been caught.

It is, frankly, considerably less of a deterrent when someone can be driving along the road unaware that they've committed an offence, and don't hear anything about it until a few days later when a ticket drops through the door.

If we have the technology to detect someone speeding, and the technology to read their number plate - which we do - then a far more practical approach would be to make sure that they knew THERE AND THEN - "A460 PLD: you are exceeding the speed limit" - whether or not you also chose to ticket them.

I've said this before - and got griped at for being far too moderate and reasonable about it - but if we're really interested in doing something about road safety, then we need to find ways of moderating behaviours. Going on the basis of nearly 15 years' worth of speed cameras, during which time the steady drop in KSIs on the road of the previous 15 years has pretty much levelled out, whatever we're doing right now isn't working.

Time to make a change, I think. Even though accepted wisdom in political circles does tend to be "if it doesn't work, do the same thing, just more so".
 
If we're REALLY fining people as a deterrent (I'm not sure we are, but I don't think it's about revenue-earning, either: I think that it is, purely and simply, a good way to be seen to be Doing Something about road accidents), then we need to close the loop between detection of an offence and telling the person they've been caught.

It is, frankly, considerably less of a deterrent when someone can be driving along the road unaware that they've committed an offence, and don't hear anything about it until a few days later when a ticket drops through the door.

If we have the technology to detect someone speeding, and the technology to read their number plate - which we do - then a far more practical approach would be to make sure that they knew THERE AND THEN - "A460 PLD: you are exceeding the speed limit" - whether or not you also chose to ticket them.

I've said this before - and got griped at for being far too moderate and reasonable about it - but if we're really interested in doing something about road safety, then we need to find ways of moderating behaviours. Going on the basis of nearly 15 years' worth of speed cameras, during which time the steady drop in KSIs on the road of the previous 15 years has pretty much levelled out, whatever we're doing right now isn't working.

Time to make a change, I think. Even though accepted wisdom in political circles does tend to be "if it doesn't work, do the same thing, just more so".

Good points. I'd still maintain that drivers should still most certainly be fined for speeding and other dangerous habits, but that on its own is clearly not enough. With new technology there must be more direct ways of warning people, as you say, whilst they're actually driving. Of course there are already the "slow down" lights which come on when you speed on some roads but quite how effective they are I don't know.

For many, speeding is still only seen as being a problem if you get caught, rather as drink driving was up to about 20 years ago and using a mobile phone at the wheel more recently. A bit more emphasis on bad habits when being taught in the first place, plus re-testing would help.
 
Now I'll throw him a bun

Thats all very well and good, but unfortunatley the system doens not use speeding fines as a way of improving driving standards. It is being used as a way of raising revenue. People aren't always getting nicked by the police they are getting nicked by council run camera partnerships and they think its the police.

I wouldn't mind if it was about safety issue with the cameravan or something parked up by schools and places its presence would be beneficial. It makes sense and it would be an idiot that speeded there

However I only ever see them in places where its unmarked or a very odd limit like 30 on dual carriageway, or the roadowrks on motroways. Thats just rubbish bollox and fuck all to do with safety, That catch out as many dirvers as possible unawares.

So you points are admirable and correct in a ideal world however that not how the ral world works unfortunatley.

Nonetheless I always put my hands up and dont contest em when I get em. Even if I was a bit dodgy and I felt I was knicked unfairly and illegally.

At some point I got away with it so all swings and roundabout to me
 
I've just bought a car after 12 years of no driving.I'm just starting to get back into the swing of driving again and finding it quite difficult.My minds spinning constantly between watching the road for idiots and now speed cams and bus lanes.The last time I drove they didn't have such things like this :)
 
I think my son just won the "biggest fine" prize.

He was pulled over doing 160 kph in a 100 kph zone. Here, that classifies him as a street racer and the law doesn't like street racers. Legally, they can seize and destroy street racing cars even if they are not racing. Fortunately for my 18 yo son, they didn't tick the street racing box, just the stunt box.

For starters, he has gotten my car impounded for a week ($300 to get it out), his license suspended for a minimum of 7 days ($150 admin cost), immediate 6 demerit points (max is 12, then bye-bye license), and has to appear in court for future sentencing and the fine!!! The web-site says $2000 to $10,000 CAD.

He'll be cycling for a while (hubby is pissed off!!!), but he needs his car for his job (pizza delivery) or he'll never get the fines paid off.

Dumb-ass!!!!
 
Sounds like he learnt a painful lesson!

Here, there is an artificial border at 100mph. If you are caught at 100mph or more on a motorway (where the limit is 70mph), they have free reign to throw the book at you. If you are going at 99.9mph, you're going to be sorry but you'll still be walking normally after they're done with you. It's as wise to be aware of the borderlines between levels of hurt as well as the legally allowable level!
 
He will be getting very fit coz we live over 20km from town and he is about to fine out who are his real friends. I bet that blond bimbo who is always in him/my front seat will find someone new - good!!!

What are the max penalties for going 100 mph over there - maybe that will make him feel a bit better.
 
I think my son just won the "biggest fine" prize.

He was pulled over doing 160 kph in a 100 kph zone. Here, that classifies him as a street racer and the law doesn't like street racers. Legally, they can seize and destroy street racing cars even if they are not racing. Fortunately for my 18 yo son, they didn't tick the street racing box, just the stunt box.

For starters, he has gotten my car impounded for a week ($300 to get it out), his license suspended for a minimum of 7 days ($150 admin cost), immediate 6 demerit points (max is 12, then bye-bye license), and has to appear in court for future sentencing and the fine!!! The web-site says $2000 to $10,000 CAD.

He'll be cycling for a while (hubby is pissed off!!!), but he needs his car for his job (pizza delivery) or he'll never get the fines paid off.

Dumb-ass!!!!
Sodding bloody hell!

Still, doing 100mph (I didn't realise you Canucks did kph, good on yer!) in a 65 was pushing his luck a bit - that would have been a pretty much automatic ban here.

It's unfortunate that he did this in YOUR car, so YOU end up getting hit with the fees, or are you planning on billing him for them?

And does he have any kind of explanation for this act of stupidity?

Over here, "racing on the public highway" is an extremely serious offence, but I think it's a tough one to prove. Next one down is "reckless driving", which is still pretty serious, but what I think they usually end up nailing people on. After that, you're down to dangerous driving, driving without due care and attention, and - I suppose it's the bottom of the pile - "mere" speeding.

I have to say that someone doing 160kph in a 100 must almost by definition have been driving recklessly...I do hope he's learned his lesson.
 
He will be getting very fit coz we live over 20km from town and he is about to fine out who are his real friends. I bet that blond bimbo who is always in him/my front seat will find someone new - good!!!

What are the max penalties for going 100 mph over there - maybe that will make him feel a bit better.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Motoring/Question389198.html

And this is handy and fun:

http://www.pepipoo.com/Magistrates_guidelines.htm

Yep, a penalties calculator! :)

ETA: from playing with that, the only difference with increasing speed over 100mph is that the maximum length of the ban can increase, up to 56 days. At about 111mph, that rulebook goes out of the window, and they REALLY start getting tough - I suspect that's where they start looking at reckless driving.

That's for a limit of 70mph, though - your 100kph limit is more like 60.

Sounds as if the penalties are roughly equivalent
 
Sodding bloody hell!

Still, doing 100mph (I didn't realise you Canucks did kph, good on yer!) in a 65 was pushing his luck a bit - that would have been a pretty much automatic ban here.

It's unfortunate that he did this in YOUR car, so YOU end up getting hit with the fees, or are you planning on billing him for them?

Hell no!!! We will pay, he will give back all monies before he will drive one of our cars again!!!

And does he have any kind of explanation for this act of stupidity?

He wanted a piece for the car he is rebuilding, so he decided to travel the 60 km there and another 60 km back within the 2 hours he had between end of school and starting work.

Two days earlier, he took a loaner car up to Ottawa (100 km each way) after school without my knowledge. He crashed it (he is paying for that as well). He promised he would be more respectful and now this......

Over here, "racing on the public highway" is an extremely serious offence, but I think it's a tough one to prove. Next one down is "reckless driving", which is still pretty serious, but what I think they usually end up nailing people on. After that, you're down to dangerous driving, driving without due care and attention, and - I suppose it's the bottom of the pile - "mere" speeding.

I have to say that someone doing 160kph in a 100 must almost by definition have been driving recklessly...I do hope he's learned his lesson.

I hope so. I phoned the arresting officier and told him he needs the car for work, but I'm not too sure if that will help any. We will see soon, I suppose.
 
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Motoring/Question389198.html

And this is handy and fun:

http://www.pepipoo.com/Magistrates_guidelines.htm

Yep, a penalties calculator! :)

ETA: from playing with that, the only difference with increasing speed over 100mph is that the maximum length of the ban can increase, up to 56 days. At about 111mph, that rulebook goes out of the window, and they REALLY start getting tough - I suspect that's where they start looking at reckless driving.

That's for a limit of 70mph, though - your 100kph limit is more like 60.

Sounds as if the penalties are roughly equivalent

Thanks for the links - excellent!!!


I see yours are based on weekly income - interesting.

Not ours. It seems a bit discriminatory - almost like saying if you are umemployed, you pay next to nothing. I don't think I like that idea. Everyone should pay the same, imo.
 
Thanks for the links - excellent!!!


I see yours are based on weekly income - interesting.

Not ours. It seems a bit discriminatory - almost like saying if you are umemployed, you pay next to nothing. I don't think I like that idea. Everyone should pay the same, imo.
But a fine that'll bankrupt a boy racer wouldn't even register for a premiership footballer. ;)
 
Thanks for the links - excellent!!!


I see yours are based on weekly income - interesting.

Not ours. It seems a bit discriminatory - almost like saying if you are umemployed, you pay next to nothing. I don't think I like that idea. Everyone should pay the same, imo.

I think that's how the system used to be here.

Personally, I think this is fairer - and I'm pretty sure it came in at a point where fines got a lot steeper, too. So perhaps the way to look at it is that someone on a very good income is now paying a much more significant fine than they might have before.

But a fine that'll bankrupt a boy racer wouldn't even register for a premiership footballer. ;)

Which, given that the latter profession tends to feature rather heavily in the motoring offence department, is probably quite important :)
 
dont reply to it, if asked say you never got it.....

they're not allowed to press charges if there is no correspondance for more than 6 weeks and they cant prove you've had the letters ;)
 
There is one camera on the A68 in Scotland that goes off if you are doing over 40mph, the speed limit is national which is 60mph, the camera is set up to 40 mph for trucks but gets everybody.

It is a very fast bit of road and from what I gather is a huge revenue gatherer.

A lot of cars have been caught by overtaking the trucks.

I know this is an old thread but if you see this, is that the one at the bottom of Soutra? I've been flashed by that as I overtook a caravan that was doing under 40mph, I wondered if it was just the sudden acceleration that triggered it because there's no way I was doing more than 50mph as I passed it.(I never got a ticket, this was months ago)
 
dont reply to it, if asked say you never got it.....

they're not allowed to press charges if there is no correspondance for more than 6 weeks and they cant prove you've had the letters ;)

This is really, dangerously stupid, and bad advice.

The courts generally take the view that 1st class letterpost is a valid form of service, and will be disinclined to believe someone who says they haven't received it.

In any case, if they receive no response to the NIP after a certain time, they send out another one - you would be hard pressed to say that TWO letters randomly failed to arrive, or at least need to be in a position to offer a pretty good explanation as to why.

And by taking this course of action, you deny yourself any opportunity to check that the ticket has been issued in good order, that the photograph (or other record) of the alleged offence is accurate and even shows your car (it's not unknown...), or, in the final resort, to have your day in court.

Remember, too, that if you decide to ignore the NIP and end up with a copper holding a court summons standing on your doorstep, that for most speeding offences, the maximum penalty the court can impose is double the fixed-penalty points, and fines up to £2000 (£2500 for motorway offences). Although it's unlikely they ever would, any hint that you were trying to pull a fast one is going to be a pretty sound way of getting the book thrown at you.

www.pepipoo.co.uk is the place to go if you get a ticket and want some advice.
 
He will be getting very fit coz we live over 20km from town and he is about to fine out who are his real friends. I bet that blond bimbo who is always in him/my front seat will find someone new - good!!!

What are the max penalties for going 100 mph over there - maybe that will make him feel a bit better.
I don't know what the fine is, but I do know that it is an immediate loss of licence.

ETA: Didn't notice that there was a page 4 and that agnes had already replied!
 
A bugger. 12 years on I've got another one. Driving my Dad's converted Berlingo which normally takes his mobility scooter around of all things.

Not seen the paperwork yet. Hoping I get the option to do a naughty drivers course rather then the points. 57 in a 50 zone. It's a fair cop though really, even if I think the road should be a 60, clearly they don't. :D
 
i got a 57 in a 50 on the A1M a month or two ago, middle of the night, temporary speed restriction. my fault of course. been long enough since i have live points and shit that i did the driving course- its now online and only takes a couple of hours rather than a classroom attendance. some insurance companies want to know of you have done a course in the past 5 years tho'. meh
 
Easily done. Have driven a couple of cars recently with speed limiters which are great. Wish all cars had them.
 
Back
Top Bottom