Help With Speeding Please!!!

[bigal9ball]

HI ALL,

I"ll make this as short as i can for you all?

Basically ive got 9 points on my licence and have just recently been zapped by a police camera van at the side of the road! apparently i was doing 47mph in a 40mph zone? The problem ive got is that the offence took place on the 21st april 2007 but i didnt recieve my letter until the 10th may 2007? I was under the impression that the police had 14 days to issue you with this letter??. The other thing is that 3 of my previous points are due to be removed on may 28th?(they are 3 years old on that date-is this correct??)so even if i dont have a case with the 14 day rule will i be able to buy myself enough time to have my 3 points removed before my new 3 points go on thus avoiding a ban????

ANY HELP WOULD BE GRATEFUL PLEASE-thanks BIG AL

[Guest ian cognito]

This site has the experts on this subject

 

PePiPoo: Helping the motorist to get justice

 

The CAG of motoring!

[dw190]

HI ALL,

I"ll make this as short as i can for you all?

Basically ive got 9 points on my licence and have just recently been zapped by a police camera van at the side of the road! apparently i was doing 47mph in a 40mph zone? The problem ive got is that the offence took place on the 21st april 2007 but i didnt recieve my letter until the 10th may 2007? I was under the impression that the police had 14 days to issue you with this letter??. The other thing is that 3 of my previous points are due to be removed on may 28th?(they are 3 years old on that date-is this correct??)so even if i dont have a case with the 14 day rule will i be able to buy myself enough time to have my 3 points removed before my new 3 points go on thus avoiding a ban????

ANY HELP WOULD BE GRATEFUL PLEASE-thanks BIG AL

 

As stated above PePiPoo: Helping the motorist to get justice is the place to be for alleged speeding offences.

 

Your answer to the fourteen day rule depends on if the vehicle is registered in your name at your address and the registration document shows that to be the case.

 

Keep the envelope that the Notice came in.

[patdavies]

I would echo the advice to go to Pepipoo - they are the experts.

 

One point though, points run from date of offence not date of conviction - just to stop people doing what you want to do - delay the conviction. So you need to re-examine your licence and see when the dates of offences were, to see if you still had 9 points at the time of the latest offence.

[Guest ArthurP]

HI ALL,

I"ll make this as short as i can for you all?

Basically ive got 9 points on my licence and have just recently been zapped by a police camera van at the side of the road!

 

ANY HELP WOULD BE GRATEFUL PLEASE-thanks BIG AL

 

Yes, I can give some help.

 

When you are driving on UK roads there are signs dotted all around that indicate to you the maximum speed you can do. If there are no signs and you are in a built up area assume it is 30 mph.

 

Motorways are a max 70 mph.

 

This is pretty basic stuff that one needs to know when learning to drive.

 

I drive an average of 100k a year and have always had a clean licence.

 

How am I able to do so and you are not?

[graeme1970]

yeah the 14 day rule does apply, as long as your the registered keeper witht he dvla, like others have already stated, look at pepipoo and you will find the relevant info. wow arthurp your now my hero

[Rich44]

I have to agree re PepiPoo I took the advice from there regarding parking tickets and eventually won

 

ArthurP - I dont think anyone is any doubt as to the speed limits and we're not here to judge we all make mistakes I doubt there is a driver in the country that has not broken the limit from time to time either deliberately or accidentally not to mention that car speedo's arent especially accurate either

[Guest ArthurP]

I have to agree re PepiPoo I took the advice from there regarding parking tickets and eventually won

 

ArthurP - I dont think anyone is any doubt as to the speed limits and we're not here to judge we all make mistakes I doubt there is a driver in the country that has not broken the limit from time to time either deliberately or accidentally not to mention that car speedo's arent especially accurate either

 

Inaccuracies with car speedo's, and camaras, are balanced by the fact of a certain percentage of tolerance allowable eg. you will be highly unlikely to be booked for driving at 31 mph in a 30 mph zone yet, technically, you will be breaking the law.

 

The OP is alleged to have driven at 47 mph in a 40 mph zone and has, probably, three past convictions of speeding.

 

This isn't just a mistake-it's careless and dangerous.

 

Those of us who have been affected in the past by speeding drivers recognise this fact.

 

Again I say, if I, and many others, are able to drive the equivalent of some 3 or 4 times round the world in one year and still have a clean licence then why can't the OP?

 

Not only has he been caught out yet again he now wants advice on how to get off the hook.

 

The only advice for the OP is don't speed or give up driving as he is clearly not very good. What else does he expect?:?

[patdavies]

 

This isn't just a mistake-it's careless and dangerous.

 

 

Why is it dangerous? Do you know mare than the rest of us here about the circumstances of this particular alleged offence?

 

Inaccuracies with car speedo's, and camaras, are balanced by the fact of a certain percentage of tolerance allowable eg. you will be highly unlikely to be booked for driving at 31 mph in a 30 mph zone yet, technically, you will be breaking the law.

 

Just for you information, the ACPO guidelines for prosecution to allow for speedometer inaccuracies is limit*10%+2 - so for a 40 mph limit the prosecution threshold is 46 mph. 1 mph above this is hardly a capital crime.

 

The authorities still refuse to accept that many handheld cameras are inaccurate despite several occasions where they have been shown to be so and the fact that some US states (where they originate) have banned their use.

[graeme1970]

just in the same way banks have to comply with the law, the police/camera partnerships have to also, part of this law is ensuring the nip (notice of intended prosecution) arrives to the alleged speeder within 14 days. only time this does not apply is when the actual speeder is not the registered keeper of the vehichle. this is not abusing the law or trying to get off the hook, its just complying with the law. as for the guidlines at which speeds they prosecute for speeding, they are just that "guidlines" even though parliament say they should be followed, the police/partnerships do whatever they like. some people have been prosecuted for 33 in a 30, tell me that is fair if you can. speedos are not reliable for 33 in a 30

[graeme1970]

Inaccuracies with car speedo's, and camaras, are balanced by the fact of a certain percentage of tolerance allowable eg. you will be highly unlikely to be booked for driving at 31 mph in a 30 mph zone yet, technically, you will be breaking the law.

 

The OP is alleged to have driven at 47 mph in a 40 mph zone and has, probably, three past convictions of speeding.

 

This isn't just a mistake-it's careless and dangerous.

 

Those of us who have been affected in the past by speeding drivers recognise this fact.

 

Again I say, if I, and many others, are able to drive the equivalent of some 3 or 4 times round the world in one year and still have a clean licence then why can't the OP?

 

Not only has he been caught out yet again he now wants advice on how to get off the hook.

 

The only advice for the OP is don't speed or give up driving as he is clearly not very good. What else does he expect?:?

and its not careless or dangerous driving, if it had of been then they would have been prosecuted for that, careless and dangerous driving are actual crimes, are you quallified to distinguish between them?

[Sidewinder]

......and the law not only applies to the OP but also to those who administer justice. The OP did not ask for judgement of his allegedly speeding but for an opinion on whether the case against him could lawfully proceed should it be the case that the NIP was issued too late.

[Guest ArthurP]

Why is it dangerous? Do you know mare than the rest of us here about the circumstances of this particular alleged offence?

 

It is dangerous to speed which is why there are speed limits in place.

You and I know as much about this alleged offence as each other.

However, I'd err on the side that the OP has again been caught speeding as his previous form suggests so and a reading of 47 mph is most probably accurate,at least accurate enough to prove speeding.

Should the OP again receive 3 points by a court in the near future then I'd suggest my post is correct and yours is not.

 

 

 

Just for you information, the ACPO guidelines for prosecution to allow for speedometer inaccuracies is limit*10%+2 - so for a 40 mph limit the prosecution threshold is 46 mph. 1 mph above this is hardly a capital crime.

 

Not quite true. 46 mph is an automatic fixed penalty therefore 45 mph is within the 'threshold.'

 

The authorities still refuse to accept that many handheld cameras are inaccurate despite several occasions where they have been shown to be so and the fact that some US states (where they originate) have banned their use.

 

To contest the callibration of handheld cameras is perfectly valid. If the OP does this and it is proved that the camera was accurate then he has to accept he has again been speeding.

[Guest ArthurP]

and its not careless or dangerous driving, if it had of been then they would have been prosecuted for that, careless and dangerous driving are actual crimes,

 

Speeding itself can be considered careless and/or dangerous driving. As can reading a map, using a mobile, eating, smoking etc.

 

The OP was caught by a camera van. Had it been a traffic car then the charge may have been more severe if it was the opinion of the traffic police and the circumstances of the offence.

 

However, it is prudent for a driver to realise that speeding is considered careless and/or dangerous driving as a matter of fact.

 

 

 

are you quallified to distinguish between them? Yes.

 

 

 

 

The reason why there are so many cameras is because there are so many bad drivers.

[graeme1970]

The reason why there are so many cameras is because there are so many bad drivers.

is it? i thought it was to reduce accidents, accidents dont just happen from bad driving

[Parva]

I (and I'm sure many) can drive perfectly safely at 85mph on a deserted motorway with absolutely no danger to others yet I witness all manner of drivers driving dangerously at 25mph in a 30mph limit! Gaining points for having being caught speeding is not proof of driving recklessly! Just for the record, I have no points on my license and 20 years no-claims but I for one will admit to regularly exceeding the speed-limit where conditions permit (and not to a reckless degree I must add)!

[MrShed]

It is somewhat narrow minded to assume that going over the speed limit is "dangerous", as that presumes that you take the current speed system(and, therefore, EVERY SINGLE individual speed limit on every road) in this country as 100% perfect.

 

However, I must agree that a THIRD offence does strongly suggest a tendency for speeding, and probably a tendency for speeding in inappropriate locations - I would be surprised if all 3 have been completely careful driving. Perhaps more to the point, there is something of a lack of common sense to continue speeding, whether dangerous/careless or not, when the driver KNOWS that any further offences and he will probably receive a ban.

[Isiris]

To contest the callibration of handheld cameras is perfectly valid. If the OP does this and it is proved that the camera was accurate then he has to accept he has again been speeding.

 

Yes, and he is also allowed to contest that the NIP did not arrive within the 14 days allowed

[bigal9ball]

OOOPS!-Ive started something off now havent i?? I must totally agree with arthur that driving within the speed limits all the time is very sensible and safe??? (if your brain operates at those speeds!!).

I most certainly am not a dangerous driver and like parva i only exceed limits where safe to do so! i drive in excess of 25k miles a year and have never in 21 years had or even nearly had as much as a sniff of an accident and also as many of you will agree i never had any points either until mobile cameras were put in place?

Im sure arthur is in a very small minority of drivers with a clean licence these days?

Anyway ive been on pepipoo and they dont really tell me what i want to know and their forum gets about 7 hits a year so i will probably be doing porridge by the time i get a reply to my question?

And by the way arthur i thought we were all on the same side on this website;) ?? BIG AL

[MrShed]

Regardless of speeding when safe to do so, would it not have been sensible to not speed at all knowing that you would probably receive a ban on your next offence? I also have a clean licence as a point of note - I speed a lot, just never in daft places and never near any fixed or mobile speed camera locations.

[bigal9ball]

Granted mr shed-but how do you know where the mobile ones are gonna be? My latest one was on an empty dual carriageway having just rounded a bend and was on top of the camera before i even got a chance to touch my brake pedal?? the one before that was doing 57 in a 50 on a motorway? Both not excessive and both very close to being legal but i suppose we can go on all night like this so i"ll hold my hands up!

By the way my father has never let me forget that i should keep within the limits at all times! Hes been driving for 60 years with no points or accidents until he got flashed by a speed camera about 2 months ago doin 44 in a 40? DONT TELL ME THERE ISNT A GOD:D .

Hes been back down the same road about 160 times now as he is still not convinced he was doing anything wrong and boy do i let him have it every time he brings it up? LOL

BIG AL

[MrShed]

Doesnt matter whether you know where they are or not - if I was one offence from a ban, I would stick rigidly 100% to the limits.

[bazak1]

just out of curiosity, can anyone confirm or deny regards the 10% plus 1 rule that used to apply. i believe this is in connection to when your vehicle is new and your speedo is calibrated, then everything is correct, but after so many miles, your tyres deteriorate and therefore your speedo isnt technically correct. i have heard this from a transport worker at my place of employment. his example was, " if you are doing 33 in a thirty or 44 in a forty, the police wont bother.

i have to admit its a new one to me, and i only enquired about it with him because of the tachographs we use obviously record speed.

take a look at safespeed.org.uk/speeding

i'm not saying its right to speed, because it isnt, and i dont condone it but in really close calls, would this rule ( if its still in operation ) be called in.

 

anyone like to comment

[Parva]

Regardless of speeding when safe to do so, would it not have been sensible to not speed at all knowing that you would probably receive a ban on your next offence? I also have a clean licence as a point of note - I speed a lot, just never in daft places and never near any fixed or mobile speed camera locations.

But that's an oxymoron Would you seriously respect the 30/40/50 mph limit even is on 9 points? Nah

[Isiris]

I am amazed at some of the attitudes on here.

 

The original poster held his hands up to speeding but queried the NIP.

 

This forum was built on the fact that Bank Charges are unlawful and as such, we have taken advantage of the law to recover £millions back from the bank.

 

While you can sit on your high horses that he shouldnt have been speeding (And I would say less the 1/2 a % of the population dont speed but today they all seem to be on here) the fact is, do you all slate people with charges saying that you should have had money in your account.

 

The same rule applies.

 

To the OP, keep the envelope the NIP came in. If you can prove it arrived 14 days after the ALLEGED offence then no case to answer