Re: Bit O.T. Speeding ... ?

If the cameras were a significant distance apart I would think it would have to count as three offences but I believe that the courts do have some discretion. Your daughter would almost certainly have to go to court to stand a chance of getting a reduced penalty.

You may find more info here.

Tim

Average speed cameras don't flash.

Tim

Arfa Daily formulated on Thursday :

I have to ask, in a light-hearted way of course, is your daughter blonde by any chance?

To notice the first flash would make me think 'S*it, the fekkin' cameras are working and I've just been caught - suppose I'd better slow down for the next camera'.

To go on and be flashed a further TWO times is just beyond belief 8-o

Serves her right. Silly woman.

Paragraph 4 would appear to apply here, in which case, unless the Court decides to exercise its power to ignore that, no more than three penalty points should be applied.

Colin Bignell

It could certainly pick up a fine for each transgression.

However, Paragraph 5 appears to say that the court can ignore Paragraph

Arfa Daily put finger to keyboard:

ISTR a few years ago, but can't find any reference to on t'Net, that someone argued in court that his multiple speeding offences, i.e. being caught by three consecutive cameras, were in fact one continuous offence. He lost.

An elderly woman around here was "done" three times on the same day with the same camera!

Under Paragraph 6, any such decision must be justified in open court, which would leave it open to later challenge if it did not fall within the sentencing guidelines.

For a Magistrate's Court, the guidelines for exceeding a 70mph limit are

Band A fines are 25%-75% of relevant weekly income, which is based upon a declaration by the offender, with a minimum RWI of £100. Band B fines are 75%-125% of RWI.

Colin Bignell

In my book it would be three separate offences each carrying the default fine and points. If the points total ends up meaning a ban well that's just tough...

That's my book though, the one the magistrates appear to use seems a bit lenient IMHO. Still she will have to take it to court to get the magistrates opinion, who may well decide to follow my book. B-)

However, that is clearly three separate occasions on which she was speeding. In the OP's case, it could be argued that there was one occasion, captured three times.

Colin Bignell

I certainly heard it said (maybe late evening in a pub many years ago), that if the vehicle did not slow down to the speed limit between cameras, and did not pass through different speed limits, it should count as one offence. You can certainly see that she could have been caught by two or more cameras at near-enough the same instant, but not quite, in a gantry situation. That would surely not result in multiple offences? But the situation of several cameras spread along the road (rather than across) could be argued also not to involve multiple offences but, at worst, one continuing offence. And maybe such a continuing offence should result in a heavier punishment.

And it is all very well saying it is what she deserves, but equally, she deserves the appropriate and fair interpretation of the law.

Similarly, I recall a case where someone won with a claim that if they had known about the first instance they would have abated their speed and that the three incidents should be treated as one. Of course, the OP's daughter doesn't have to worry unless or until she receives three NIPs.

Peter Johnson put finger to keyboard:

The *real* worry will come if she receives a NIP for the first and last camera, but not the middle one. If she then tries to argue that it was one offence because she kept that speed all along, she's admitting she was speeding past the second camera too...

Think she needs to invest in a bus timetable.

Scion :

I don't see why. The offence is speeding. It isn't speeding past a camera.

In article , Pete scribeth thus

Well that does beg a question of where are three speed cameras on the same stretch of motorway surely they aren't that close together?.

Sure they were speed cams and not something else?..

In article , Frank Erskine scribeth thus

Course if it came to it she could go on a "speed awareness" course one of my relatives did that, reduced the fine and points IIRC but shes rather sanctimonious now on the subject;!...

Even when I had a speed camera detector I never came across 3 gantry cameras within a couple of miles of each other. Of couse if you can repeat the journey in the other direction and you can remember where you were flashed than you can actually have a look up at the gantry to see if there is a camera on there.