[Closed] Any speeding prosecution experts

really?
[img] [/img]

oh sorry, you said [b]got[/b] not [b]is a [/b]

really?

Scroll down 'til his head is off the page.
That's how I imagine most STWers to look like. 😈

ETA: you ruined it!

If you accept what you are doing is morally wrong and would therefore "take it on the chin" as many posters have written, then why do it in the first place?

Breaking speed limit, but not being caught by cameras = driving with due care and attention. Not seeing cameras = driving without due care and attention.
Or something along those lines 😀

cougar - I believe the term you're looking for is "eligible for disqualification". I think this is something like ~45% of the posted speed.

Well if you want to be pedantic discressionary disqualification can be applied at any speed.

Well, yes, that's what discretionary means. Not immediately sure when they'd apply that though, perhaps if there are other factors than just speeding involved?

"eligible for disqualification" implies that you [i]will[/i] be disqualified, unless there are mitigating circumstances to prevent this. Eg you'll lose your job if you can't drive, and so there's therefore "unnecessary hardship."

Incidentally, you appear to be confusing "pedantic" with "correct."

Do you have any idea how many people are killed each year, by a car driver, because they were speeding?

Yes none. Speed has never killed a single person in the history of time. What kills people is too rapid a rate of deceleration. The human body reguarly travels faster than the speed of sound with no ill effects.

What causes traffic accidents is 2 objects occupying the same space at the same time. There are lots of reasons why that happens, usually around misjudgement by one, some or all of the people involved.

Genuine question on morality here, if you have been breaking the speed limit, is there any moral difference between trying to get off when you have been caught and not volunteering to pay a fine when you haven't been caught? 😕

Do you have any idea how many people are killed each year, by a car driver, because they were speeding?

Yes none. Speed has never killed a single person in the history of time. What kills people is too rapid a rate of deceleration. The human body reguarly travels faster than the speed of sound with no ill effects.

Not sure if you have done it deliberately, but you have misunderstood the question you commented on.

To word it another way.

How many people (cyclists/pedestrians/horse riders/other motorists) every year are killed by Car Drivers that are speeding ?

Cougar - Member
Ok, I was curious, so I googled it.

Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (Russian: ?????? ????????????? ???????; IPA: [m??x??il ?ba?kun?in]) (30 May [O.S. 18 May] 1814 – 1 July 1876) was a Russian revolutionary, philosopher, and theorist of collectivist anarchism. He has also often been called the father of anarchist theory in general.

You're barking, and I'm not talking to you any more.

I wouldn't say 'barking'. I would say just someone who plays by the rules most of the time, will accept any consequences of not doing so, and gets a bit pissed off when others pick and choose what rules they think they ought to follow AND get all humpty when they get caught.

Your quote agreeing that the legal system is just a game of cat and mouse with draconian authorities would not mark you down as someone with a great deal of respect for authority.

It's alright anyway - I don't want to talk to you either.

nealglover - Member
To word it another way.

Nearly.
I suppose I should have said "in how many fatal RTAs is speed recorded as the primary cause".
Then I would have avoided chrismac's Jeremy Clarkson quote, which would have been nice as it was a lot less funny this time round.

Incidentally, you appear to be confusing "pedantic" with "correct."

Another for my Teeshirt collection ! 🙂

Many thanks.

To word it another way.

How many people (cyclists/pedestrians/horse riders/other motorists) every year are killed by Car Drivers that are speeding ?

That's not wording it another way, it's a different question.

The first question implies a causal link, your second does not. You might as well ask how many people are killed by drivers wearing green jumpers.

Another for my Teeshirt collection

We aim to please. (-:

It's alright anyway - I don't want to talk to you either.

So long as you get the last word though, eh? 😉

Your quote agreeing that the legal system is just a game of cat and mouse with draconian authorities would not mark you down as someone with a great deal of respect for authority.

"The legal system" and "authority" are different things.

Legal process places high value on procedure, technical accuracy, and precedence. Without correct procedure, the process fails. It has to, otherwise we'd get situations where there's no real evidence but people get convicted regardless because "well, we know he's guilty, really."

Wholly unrelated to any respect for authority or lack thereof. I have no beef with authority, my given respect would only be questioned if none was afforded to me.

You're barking, and I'm not talking to you any more.

I wasn't being wholly serious, y'know.

someone who plays by the rules most of the time, will accept any consequences of not doing so, and gets a bit pissed off when others pick and choose what rules they think they ought to follow AND get all humpty when they get caught.

I don't think the OP ever got 'humpty', or any of the other Play School toys. But regardless. The angle I was pursuing wasn't "how to avoid consequences" so much as questioning how much faith you can have in a NIP which has mistakes on it, which I think is more or less what the OP was asking.

Cougar, I was re phrasing the question, intending to simplify it for whoever it was that wrote this

Yes none. Speed has never killed a single person in the history of time. What kills people is too rapid a rate of deceleration. The human body reguarly travels faster than the speed of sound with no ill effects.

As he clearly "misunderstood" the question in his rush to quote Clarkson.
the effect a speeding car can have on pedestrians - They are not normally killed by "too rapid a rate of deceleration"

I see what you mean about the change in implied causality, and that wasn't intentional.

<nods>

TBH, I read the 'deceleration' comment (is it attributable to Clarkson?) to be an attempt at humour. If serious, it's less 'misunderstood' and more 'bizarre'. (-:

Well, yes, that's what discretionary means. Not immediately sure when they'd apply that though, perhaps if there are other factors than just speeding involved?

It will apply in any circumstances where the sentencing Judge deems it appropriate. It might, for example, apply at less than 45% over the speed limit if the circumstances of the offence made the speeding more serious, e.g. in particularly bad weather, close to a school with lots of pedestrians milling about etc. Since previous offences are also taken into account, if someone has a long history of speeding and doesn't seem to have learned it might also be appropriate to ban rather than wait for totting up to come into play. Another common circumstance when discretionary disqual is used at speeds you might not expect it is when the accused (or more likely their lawyer) asks for it. Why would they do that? Imagine you are on 9 points. You are facing another 3, and then a consequential totting up ban for 6 months. You might suggest a 1 month ban and financial penalty would be better. Whether the sentencing judge goes for it is a matter for his (or her) personal discretion. Some do, some don't.

"eligible for disqualification" implies that you will be disqualified, unless there are mitigating circumstances to prevent this.

no it doesn't, it implies you eligible for disqualification; all speeding offences are "Eligible for Disqualification". There is no automatic assumption of a ban by magistrates even at very high speeds (although it is a likely outcome). p131 contains the sentencing [b]guidelines[/b] for first time offenders, in the English and Welsh Magistrates' Courts:

Eg you'll lose your job if you can't drive, and so there's therefore "unnecessary hardship."

Exceptional hardship (to be pedantic/correct in the terminology!) applies in totting up cases. IIRC it does not apply in discretionary disqualification cases. If the sentencing judge deems your offence serious enough to warrant a period of discretionary disqualification, you can't argue that it will cause exceptional hardship. Oh, and generally simply losing your job is not enough to prove exceptional hardship.

Incidentally, you appear to be confusing "pedantic" with "correct."

no, you appear to have confused inaccurate with correct.

So you can spot a camera hidden in an unmarked trailer from 1,000m away, can you?
No, no you can't.

Don't need to. Several reasons.

The roads I go fast on font have that much line of sight
My satnav warns me where all the speed camera sites are
Vans are all marked these days

See, smartarse, observation is a bit more than 'looking for a van' in case you didn't know. 🙂

The people that get caught are the ones that speed all the time in obvious places like motorways and in town. That's where the cameras are. The get blasé and sloppy. Me, I'm quite happy dribbling. Along the motorway at 65 in the car. Never ever gonna get caught like that am I? In town, what's the rush? You'll fe behind the same car at the lights anyway
Also, years on motorcycles have taught me restraint. I know cars are slow so I don't bother in them. All I have to do is bide my time before I get on the bike, and when I do I simply wait until there's nobody around.... 🙂

It might, for example, apply at less than 45% over the speed limit if the circumstances of the offence made the speeding more serious, e.g. in particularly bad weather, close to a school with lots of pedestrians milling about etc.

... which is what I said. ".... if there are other factors than just speeding involved? "

There is no automatic assumption of a ban by magistrates even at very high speeds

I sit corrected.

If the sentencing judge deems your offence serious enough to warrant a period of discretionary disqualification, you can't argue that it will cause exceptional hardship.

... and again, assuming that to be correct. I didn't think it was the case, but don't know 100%.

PeterPoddy - Member

Vans are all marked these days

smartarse

No they aren't.
Enjoy your extra large portion of wrong. 😀

I agree with a lot of what you say, but with your level of naivety all I can say is stay out of Wales. 😉

Noid massively correct up to " If the sentencing judge deems your offence serious enough to warrant a period of discretionary disqualification, you can't argue that it will cause exceptional hardship. " which is slightly misleading . Given it is an absolute discretion surely the judge would or should take into account the impact on the defendant of a disqualification. In most circumstances the risk of a discretionary ban would be obvious and addressed in mitigation where it was not the judge would raise the issue and invite submissions .

Do you have any idea how many people are killed each year, by a car driver, because they were speeding?
Yes none. Speed has never killed a single person in the history of time. What kills people is too rapid a rate of deceleration. The human body reguarly travels faster than the speed of sound with no ill effects.
Not sure if you have done it deliberately, but you have misunderstood the question you commented on.

To word it another way.

How many people (cyclists/pedestrians/horse riders/other motorists) every year are killed by Car Drivers that are speeding ?

If by that do you mean how many cars were involved in accidents then lots. Where speed was a factor relatively few. According to the governments own research only 5% of accidents and 12% of fatal accidents had speed as 1 of the factors. They didn't publish a figure for the proportion of these where speed was the main factor. Source: Department for Transport, contributory factors to road accidents, 2006.

So in reality speed is not a major factor in the cause of accidents.

cougar - ... which is what I said. ".... if there are other factors than just speeding involved? "

yes I was agreeing with you and clarifying some examples of "Not immediately sure when they'd apply that though"...

crankboy - surely the judge would or should take into account the impact on the defendant of a disqualification

You are right, the process of sentencing would take into account all of the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and would likely include an awareness of issues that might result in hardship, however in the case of a "totting up disqualification" the offender is entitled to have a special hearing (proof) which only assesses the hardship case. Ordinarily it will be held on a separate day, and the offender leads evidence to support his case, and can be cross examined on it. Witnesses who were nothing to do with the offence may be called, e.g. an elderly relative or an employer. The nature of the offence resulting in totting up is not usually considered. No such provision exists for a discretionary disqualification, although as you say at a high level it may form part of the sentencing decision in the first place.

I note that para 12, p185 of the English & Welsh sentencing guidelines contradicts what I said earlier about 'volunteering' for a (short) ban. This would appear to be a difference North / South of the border; although they are only guidelines so Magistrates could ignore if there was a compelling reason.

[b]chrismac [/b]...according to the governments own research only 5% of accidents and 12% of fatal accidents had speed as 1 of the factors.

So in reality speed is not a major factor in the cause of accidents.

I've not looked at the statistics but that would [i]appear[/i] to suggest that speed is more likely to make an accident a fatal one. But to answer the question you were posting about - there are around 2500 killed on our roads each year, so in simple terms about 300 people each year are killed where speed is a contributing factor. [it may well be more as fatal accidents are often multiple fatalities which will make my primitive maths not work]. There is typically 20,000 people seriously injured on our roads too - so thats another 1000 serious injuries that are at least partly attributed to excess speed.

EDIT - mmm - i've just looked up the report you mentioned out of curiosity. Google brought me the 2010 version... From the summary

Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 14 per cent of fatalities. At least one of exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions was reported in 12 per cent of all accidents and these accidents accounted for 24 per cent of all fatalities.

speed directly contributed to roughly 436/1620 deaths on our roads; and 2744/18043 serious accidents.

Slightly OT but can you get done by a camera van when you are on a motorbike? (not that I've got one these days) I'm assuming that the camera in the van only works when you are going towards it... unless you are particularly dim.

imnotverygood - no, normally the van is set up to detect oncoming traffic, but it can measure traffic going in the opposite direction too. However to specifically manage issues like "motorbikes" there is usually (always?) a camera pointing in the opposite direction too, to get the rear number plate.

Slightly OT but can you get done by a camera van when you are on a motorbike? (not that I've got one these days) I'm assuming that the camera in the van only works when you are going towards it... unless you are particularly dim.

If you do a mega wheelie while going past then they don't see it...

speed directly contributed to roughly 436/1620 deaths on our roads; and 2744/18043 serious accidents.

I think you're doubling up the impact there. The 5% accidents / 14% of fatalities is included within the 12% of accidents / 24% of fatalities. Which means 7% of accidents and 10% of fatalities are speed related but within the speed limit.

It sounds like the fixation with speed limit policing is a distraction from addressing the other 86% of fatalities.

Zedsdead - Member

If you do a mega wheelie while going past then they don't see it...

I remember a case where a biker was repeatedly speeding past a front facing fixed gatso, but also giving it the finger.
Plod weren't happy, and managed to trace him from the type of bike (quite uncommon) and the rough location.
I think he lost his licence.

Imnotverygood yes you can get done by vans when on motorbike. I have a few years back. Photo ws of me heading towards van (bloody long way off!) , I assume someone jotted down my plate on way passed.

I remember a case where a biker was repeatedly speeding past a front facing fixed gatso, but also giving it the finger.
Plod weren't happy, and managed to trace him from the type of bike (quite uncommon) and the rough location.
I think he lost his licence.

I remember a case where a scooter rider was flying past one almost everyday but as he passed he would swing his legs back and cover the plate with his feet. It was pretty funny. But not for him as he was also traced and subsequently banned. hehe!

noid - Member
Exceptional hardship (to be pedantic/correct in the terminology!) applies in totting up cases. IIRC it does not apply in discretionary disqualification cases. If the sentencing judge deems your offence serious enough to warrant a period of discretionary disqualification, you can't argue that it will cause exceptional hardship. Oh, and generally simply losing your job is not enough to prove exceptional hardship.
Incidentally, you appear to be confusing "pedantic" with "correct."
no, you appear to have confused inaccurate with correct.

Not sure this is correct. I've been in a couple of times with a clean licence and a 100+mph ticket. Both times I took it on the chin, presented mitigation under exceptional hardonship and walked with a hefty fine and some nice points. No child's faces or baby robins were involved so all ok then.

BTW, sentencing Judge? For speeding? Mebbies speeding+murder otherwise probly a Magistrate?

About 18 months ago I got caught speeding. The grey unmarked car was sitting at least 80ft off the main road up a farm track. He asked if I saw where they were on the road, I replied no.

I always wondered if I should have looked into this a bit further..

Is this common practice or do they have to be visible?

I got zapped by a bobby with a radar gun today, first time I've even seem one! Fortunately an awfully nice chap in a white van gave me some very clear signals to expect something around the corner, so I had slowed to an almost sarcastic looking speed of 20mph. Result!

I think you're doubling up the impact there. The 5% accidents / 14% of fatalities is included within the 12% of accidents / 24% of fatalities. Which means 7% of accidents and 10% of fatalities are speed related but within the speed limit./quote] I don;t think I am as I took the data direct from the table.

It sounds like the fixation with speed limit policing is a distraction from addressing the other 86% of fatalities.

mmm... there are roughly 80 causes of accident specified of which the top 7 are:

Loss of control 34%
Failed to look properly 25%
Careless, reckless or in a hurry 20%
Exceding speed limit 14%
Poor turn or manoeuvre 14%
Travelling too fast for road conditions 13%
Failed to judge other persons path of speed 12%

Which of the factors 'more common' than speed would you suggest are easy to enforce?

 

I got zapped by a bobby with a radar gun today, first time I've even seem one! Fortunately an awfully nice chap in a white van gave me some very clear signals to expect something around the corner, so I had slowed to an almost sarcastic looking speed of 20mph. Result

*Gets comfy, reaches for popcorn*

boble- Not sure this is correct. I've been in a couple of times with a clean licence and a 100+mph ticket. Both times I took it on the chin, presented mitigation under exceptional hardonship and walked with a hefty fine and some nice points. No child's faces or baby robins were involved so all ok then.

So you just pleaded mitigation, not "exception hardship". Exceptional Hardship has a specific legal meaning; it applies in terms of s35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act (in relation to totting up); and e.g. any claims under that section can only be made once in a three year period. Discressionary disqualification s34(2) does not include any such special provision - although as rightly noted above, and appears to be the case in your situation wider mitigation can be considered.

BTW, sentencing Judge? For speeding? Mebbies speeding+murder otherwise probly a Magistrate?

A Magistrate is a Judge. I used the term sentencing Judge with the full intent of encompassing any of the judiciary who might be likely to decide the outcome of a speeding offence in the Britain: A Magistrate, or District Judge in England and Wales and a Justice of the Peace or Sheriff in Scotland. All are Judges, all cast sentence and are therefore sentencing Judges.

Slightly OT but can you get done by a camera van when you are on a motorbike? (not that I've got one these days) I'm assuming that the camera in the van only works when you are going towards it... unless you are particularly dim.

I've posted this here before, but:

A couple of years ago, I was driving somewhere up near Kirkby Lonsdale, a popular haunt of bikers. Up ahead was a mobile [s]speed[/s] safety camera van. As I approached it, a troupe of sports bikers in full Power Ranger battle armour steamed past me with complete disregard for the van at something approaching escape velocity.

Then about half a mile up the road, I encountered a second police van on a roundabout, accompanied by the same bikers, all parked up looking sheepish and gazing dejectedly at the floor whilst the Peeler wrote out a fat wad of tickets. Plod #1 had presumably radioed ahead to his mate to round them up.

Shouldn't laugh, or something.

I note that

heh, let's play spot the (junior?) solicitor 😉 🙂

Slightly OT but can you get done by a camera van when you are on a motorbike? (not that I've got one these days) I'm assuming that the camera in the van only works when you are going towards it... unless you are particularly dim.

A few years back Dumfries and Galloway constabulary apparently bought a special camera/radar van with a rotating camera/gun so that they could catch the speeding bikers headed through to the NWTT every year. The rotating camera/radar gun thing let them get the front and the back with the licence plate, where as the normal kit couldn't get the plates so they would need to pull them over manually further up the road.

(Note: This was a good few years ago and I may be misremembering or it was all a made up story in an effort to stop folk speeding)