Nick Graves

So you'd know, then!

tomkbucks

just re reading this...

" it seemed to be difficult to say that the authority had not maintained the signs in such position as required by the Directions."

Far too Obscure...... This comes down to either sides definition of the law which itself seems flawed through basic lack of detail.

You should appeal this and if necessary sue the local authority- and speak to the national press !!! the sun/mail would love this sort of thing....

ade73

I had a similar penalty years ago and thought 4 points was ok compared to getting say 6 or more but most insurance companies just took anything from 3 up to 6 as 6 anyway.

Good on you for standing your ground.

Rob88

For the sake of argument I’ll put on a Judges hat and try and prosecute… should be fun.

The crux of the argument is that you saw the speed limit sign late, not that you never saw it at all. So we have to assume that you started slowing down the moment you saw the sign like a good safe driver.
You need to argue that it takes 57 metres to safely slow from 50mph to 30mph, and in fact you were only able to safely slow from 50mph to 42 mph.
I don’t think any court will accept that argument.

If you hadn’t seen the sign at all and were still doing 50 there might have been some sympathy/belief from the court (or not).

Don’t get me wrong, I hate speed cameras. I hate sudden changes of speed limit with cameras after.
I think all large limit changes should have a range of grey area either side of them to allow for speed change. (they have them outside villages near me warning of 30mph in III, II, I, like a motorway junction).

But, in this case, I don’t think you can argue it take 57 meters to slow from 50 to 30.

JimUK

My arguement was based on that acording to DOT figures, it takes 39m to stop from 50 to 30mph under emergency braking, and it was not an emergency. Prosecution argued that i could have slowed down quicker, which i could, if it was an emergency! I asked the prosecution that if you are driving in a 50 and you see signs coming up for a 30, do you carry on at the same speed then slam your brakes on at the sign? No, you slow down gradually.

The main factor is that the scamera operator was parked just 240m into the 30mph zone, and was targeting cars that were still in the 50mph and tracking them as they came into the 30 zone. At 50mph you are travelling at 22m per second, so within 3 secs at that speed he would have already clocked you. Who can say that he is parked there for safety reasons? I could undertstand if i was 1/2 mile into the 30 but 57m, that is a joke.

Nick Graves

Vous êtes entrain d'enculer des mouches, as the French would say.

Stop trying to find rationalality in irrational behaviour by the authorities.

The law is the law and it's usually reductio ad absurdum.

Rob88

That seems quite generous.
The highwaycode has 50mph to stop taking 53 meters, including 15 metres thinking time.

Again, I’m not arguing against you here, I’m just playing the part of a prosecutor.

FistralG

That's where your defence broke down.. the details about how long it took to brake or where the van was sited are immaterial. The magistrates will always back the police unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary i.e. dated photographs taken the day the offence occurred showing the signs as obscured.

I feel for you but until the politicians stop making catching speeders more profitable for the police than catching real criminals this kind of thing will continue.

One can only hope the magistrate gets caught in a similar situation!

FistralG

that's for the average car JimUk doesn't say what car he was driving at the time of the offence but we all know an S2000 can stop on a sixpence!

Nottm_S2

grates doesn't it?

you have cash therefore are a target whereas car stealing scrots just cost cash (jail time, porridge etc).

vote for me, i'm going to be tough on crime