[Merged] - The Road Traffic Act (inc Speeding)

[me283]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Maybe the line should be moved, but which way?

Think about the reason why a speed limit may be 30 mph. It isn't all to do with stopping distances. It's just as much to do with the damage that an accident at that speed can do. In a built up area there is a chance that a child may suddenly run out from behind a parked car when you are so close that no matter how good you or the car are you cannot avoid hitting them. The greater your speed, the more injury you will cause or death even. Speed limits are there in built up areas to reduce injury in the event of an accident and as a warning that you should expect the unexpected. Heed that warning and drive responsibily which means lowering your speed way below the limit if conditions require it.

100% with you on that one Ian. But what I am saying is that all limits should be reviewed. For example, say 15mph outside schools seems fair to me. But is 70mph on the motorway a reasonable limit? And if you drive on the M25 and the variable speed limit goes from 70mph to 40mph then to 50mph and back to 40mph and finally back to 70mph, all for no apparent reason, one has to ask why those speed limits are in place?

As an aside, I have driven extensively in parts of Europe where the motorway limits are higher than ours and there are no speed cameras. I saw no accidents, no traffic jams, and much better roads too. Is there a lesson to be learnt here?

[ian@huth]

No one can force you to pay an on the spot fine. They are there to reduce the cost of proceedings which could end up being paid by the taxpayer. Most people getting on the spot fines know that they have committed the crime and would rather pay it than go to court and maybe having to pay even more. You always have the option not to pay and ultimately have the offence tried in court and face the consequences, whatever these may be. You pay an on the spot fine because you know you are guilty and it is the most convenient and cheapest way out. You don't pay if you think you are not guilty and want to risk the outcome of a court appearance.

[me283]

The logic and the idea there is great Ian. But let's look at a few issues: I read recently of someone who was eating a BLT when a piece of tomato accidentally fell out. Before they could retrieve it they were hit with a fine. Now we can see a situation where one person has acted as judge and jury, which is wrong. Sure, it could be contested, but my own experience tells me that magistrates are not the fairest people in the world. So the option is, "Accept you are wrong, or the court will probably find you more wrong"!

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by me283

100% with you on that one Ian. But what I am saying is that all limits should be reviewed. For example, say 15mph outside schools seems fair to me. But is 70mph on the motorway a reasonable limit? And if you drive on the M25 and the variable speed limit goes from 70mph to 40mph then to 50mph and back to 40mph and finally back to 70mph, all for no apparent reason, one has to ask why those speed limits are in place?

As an aside, I have driven extensively in parts of Europe where the motorway limits are higher than ours and there are no speed cameras. I saw no accidents, no traffic jams, and much better roads too. Is there a lesson to be learnt here?

The 70 mph national speed limit was brought in as a temporary measure in the 60s to see what the impact on accident statistics was. The test resulted in a lowering of the number of accidents and fatalities and less severe injuries. Two years after this temporary measure it was decided to keep it as a mandatory national speed limit.

The speed limits displayed on motorway signals are only advisory unless the speed is displayed within a red ring. There has been a reason for these to be displayed which may no longer exist when you go through the area. Whilst the speed limits may only be advisory, failure to comply with them will be taken into account if a prosecution results for whatever reason within the area that they cover.

[punky]

Originally Posted by me283

I think another key word is "prosecution". How can it then be a civil offence?

Because a civil offence, is still an offence, and therefore prosecutable.

And as for being "proven" guilty, that was a farce in my case too. Also, the mere mention of a fine is surely wrong before guilt is established?

I wouldn't personally say your case was a farce as such, but you were extremely hard done by as the fixed penalty people hindered your defence, and the judge sided with them, and not you. Had you known before hand, you would have been more prooactive and been able to provide your intended defence. You still have the right to appeal, but as your car was speeding, wether it was with you or someone else driving, unless you are willing to name the driver, you'll probably be better off just taking it.

I wouldn't say the mention of a fine is prejudical to you. It is intended to inform you of the possible consequences of your alleged actions. That is why fixed penaltys were devised, so people don't have to worry for months about their intended punishment, they know it well in advance.

[Graham F]

Originally Posted by me283

Punky,

I think another key word is "prosecution". How can it then be a civil offence? And as for being "proven" guilty, that was a farce in my case too. Also, the mere mention of a fine is surely wrong before guilt is established?

The question of fines is a very grey area from what I have found out. It seems (and this is not a political rant) that the government has brought in several laws that are in contravention of the English Constitution. But who has the money and the ability to fight them? I personally think on-the-spot fines are a good thing in some cases, but the administering of these matters is fraught with pitfalls.

Care to say which laws are and how they are?

[basa]

Originally Posted by punky

<snip>Small speeding offenses (unless they are big enough to constitute dangerous or reckless driving) are civil offenses. You don't have a criminal record. Your right to silence on the grounds that it might incriminate yourself doesn't apply.

<snip>

Speeding is a criminal offence !
see
here and here
Oh and BTW .. magistrates find guilty in 85% of cases .. regardless of evidence. They are lay people with no special training in Law.

"Abandon hope all ye who enter there !!!"

[punky]

Originally Posted by basa

Speeding is a criminal offence !
see
here and here
Oh and BTW .. magistrates find guilty in 85% of cases .. regardless of evidence. They are lay people with no special training in Law.

"Abandon hope all ye who enter there !!!"

I'll check with my dad who is an ex-copper, but if speeding was a criminal offence, then everyone who sped, regardless of amount, would have a criminal record, and AFAIK, you'd have to be arrested for it, with your miranda rights issued.

Some motoring offences are criminal, such as reckless and dangerous driving, driving whilst under the influence, driving without insurance, license, etc. but they aren't dealt with a fixed penalty (or a camera), they always go to court.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by me283

Flubflow, I agree with you, it SHOULD be the case. But here's a quandary: how does one "prove" that one has written to the FPSU? For an answer we should refer to the FAQ section on the paperwork sent out by the court. One example question asks how the FPSU can prove the Notice was sent; the answer is that the FPSU provide a statement to that effect, and the court regard that as "Good Service". So wjy is it not the same rule for me?

I take it you used recorded or registered post when you wrote to the FPSU?
That proves they recieved it, and it is then up to them to give a valid reason for not responding.
The police must also use recorded or registered post in order to prove that they sent the NIP within 14 day.
Most however don't as they're cheapscates even though the income from the fines should be available to pay for this.
With my case which Debsy directed you to, was thrown out because of the incompetence of Humberside Police with regards to how they handled my requests for information.

It is my experience they are only interested in getting a conviction wether it's legal or not, or the person who was actually speeding and they'll do what ever they can to dodge your requests for information.
I asked twice for evidence that they had actually sent me a NIP, the first time they ignored my request, the second time they signed a statement saying they hadn't recieved it (thankfully I had proof of delivery) and passed my case straight to the court.
On the court paperwork where you can put extenuating circumstances, I detailed the law stating that a conviction cannot be given without proof that the NIP had been sent within 14 days, that the dates quoted for correspondance on the statement the police gave were inaccurate, and that it had claimed that they had not recieved my final letter.
The CSA investigated, requested the police to explain the discrepancies and about my final letter, the police were unable to give a satisfactory (or apparently even relivant) reply and the case was thrown out, with appologies from the CSA reprisentative and the Clerk of the Justice, who were both extremely angry at the police for wasting so much time and money.
Thankfully I had Debs with me for support too

I would seek legal advice from a solicitor to find out if you are able to appeal.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

The 70 mph national speed limit was brought in as a temporary measure in the 60s to see what the impact on accident statistics was. The test resulted in a lowering of the number of accidents and fatalities and less severe injuries. Two years after this temporary measure it was decided to keep it as a mandatory national speed limit.

I thought it was in response to the shock that someone did 134mph and there was no speed limit at the time.

Now if only people would read the highway code and learn what the national speed limit is on dual carrigeways and single carrigeways (and how to tell one road from the other!)

Originally Posted by ian@huth

The speed limits displayed on motorway signals are only advisory unless the speed is displayed within a red ring. There has been a reason for these to be displayed which may no longer exist when you go through the area. Whilst the speed limits may only be advisory, failure to comply with them will be taken into account if a prosecution results for whatever reason within the area that they cover.

Also, the signs may be on because they need to restrict the flow to the road several miles up ahead where there could be a problem.
There's no point putting a low speed limit just where an accident is, much better to reduce it long before so the traffic doesn't bunch up and you get stop go traffic which often leads to other accidents.

If I had my way and unlimited budget, I'd upgrade all our motorways, and deploy the variable speed limit signs along all stretches.
That way you could have a higher limit on safe stretches of road, but in the wet, or fog, or if there's roadworks or an accident, the speedlimit can be reduced appropriately.

Say you have a stretch of motorway which in the dry it's deemed officially safe to do 100mph along, but in the wet you get standing water and 40mph is the safest cars should go.
At the moment you have people doing up to 100mph in the dry safely, but how many drivers do you think would slow to 40mph in the wet? Sure a load will drop to 60, or maybe 50, but only a few will go lower.
Legally they can go 70 in the wet without being charged with speeding, however this is highly dangerous, but you'd need a police patrol car to catch them.
Now with my system, the speed is set at what is deemed safe, and therefore going over automatically means you are driving dangerously, just as driving past a school at 3:30pm doing 30mph is legal, but could be deemed as dangerous driving.

Members of the anti-speed camera brigade among you might enjoy the story posted on the home page of www.insidebikes.com today.

[banjo]

I have heard of cars with cloned number plates so if the picture is not produced how do they know it was your car ?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by banjo

I have heard of cars with cloned number plates so if the picture is not produced how do they know it was your car ?

They're normally put on identical cars, that way if a police check is done out on the road, it doesn't throw up a Reliant's numberplate on a Porche
__________________

Originally Posted by andyl

Members of the anti-speed camera brigade among you might enjoy the story posted on the home page of www.insidebikes.com today.

We're not anti speed cameras, we're pro speed cameras but placed sensibly with safety as a priority not money making ability.
Take the variable speed limit around the M25 near heathrow, or within roadworks, in towns near schools or pedestrian crossings, these are perfect examples of where cameras should be placed.


And why is it if you warn drivers and get them to slow down you're charged with interfering with police business, but if you tackle a robber that the police are chasing, they thank you?


http://zeeb.at/oops/SpeedEnforcement1.jpg

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by punky

Because a civil offence, is still an offence, and therefore prosecutable.

Claimant and defendant in civil cases.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham F

Care to say which laws are and how they are?

Graham, The first one that springs to mind is the removal of a right to trial by jury for certain offences/crimes. The effect is quite drastic I feel. In my case the magistrates found that the "balance of probability" was against me, although I don't see how and they refused to tell me how. Conversely, I am fairly sure that a jury of my peers may have seen matters differently.
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I take it you used recorded or registered post when you wrote to the FPSU?
That proves they recieved it, and it is then up to them to give a valid reason for not responding.
The police must also use recorded or registered post in order to prove that they sent the NIP within 14 day.

Xaccers, The court sent me a sheet of FAQs. One of these stated that a statement from the FPSU to the effect that the NIP was posted, was considered "good service" by the court. Strange though that my statement that I had written to them was not considered as such?

Were the court wrong? Is there a law that states NIPs must be sent by recorded/registered post?
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

Because a civil offence, is still an offence, and therefore prosecutable.

If speeding is a CIVIL offence then why do the Police enforce it? I'm sure we all know of incidents where the Police have been telephoned but have declined to get involved in a matter, claiming it is a CIVIL matter?
__________________

Originally Posted by gazzae

Why not? From what you say it seems that your car is used quite a lot by other people not just the odd drive. They might be willing to admit to speeding rather then find another mode of transport.


Don't mean this to sound rude, but the I get impression that you could find out who was driving if you wanted to, but you just want to get off without paying the fine.

Not so Gazzae. And besides, if I nominated a driver, and they were to deny it, then where would I be?