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

Never sure whether all gantries on the M25 have cameras? If so, I am sure there are some places where three are within a couple of miles.

There are lots of cameras on managed motorways, probably on every gantry where the speed can change.

There are NOT lots of cameras on managed motorways. When you are driving the other carriageway you can see the cameras.

Are there any managed motorways north of Birmingham? Can't say I've noticed any but I do try an avoid Manchester if I can...

I'm more used to motorways that aren't lit at night and after about 2300 to 0500 you might have one set of tail lights in the far distance and one set of headlights way behind you. B-)

On Thursday 09 May 2013 19:17 ARW wrote in uk.d-i-y:

I've had a good look in my mirrors on the bit of the M25 that's variable - seem to recall the cameras are only on every 2nd or 3rd gantry typically - certainly not on every one.

I suspect "same occasion" would mean something like going through a red light whilst speeding. I really doubt it would mean tripping

No, I don't know for sure, but I think they *are* separate offences!

If they're gantry ones, they're not average speed, instant with two flashes and a 'ruler' on the carriageway.

I don't know about the Luton stretch, but in the Nottingham stretch about 1 gantry in 3 has cameras on it.

Is that - "it has cameras" or "it can have cameras"? - there is a difference

"has", the other 2/3 only have the brackets.

I think it would depend upon how the Court interprets the phrase, given AIUI, that it was three consecutive cameras on the same stretch of road.

Colin Bignell

If the defendant could plausibly claim that she didn't slow down to below the limit between detections, it seems to me to be one offence, regardless of the paragraph in question, and regardless of how far apart those detections were.

Unless the offence is bounded by travelling below the limit before and after, it would be possible to charge anyone with a very large number of offences based on one detection and the incontrovertible *deduction* of speeding for (say) every one of the next million microseconds.

If only car manufacturers thought to fit nice shiny things to each door. They might help a driver see what's behind them.

I wonder how the magistrates will "see" that;!?...

Yes we've all perhaps been there and dun that pushed the 70 to 80 but I somehow think that lady was going a tad more. Most all speedo's under read by 5 % or thereabouts*. I had a precision GPS timing unit in my car a while ago and on a long straight unhindered stretch found that when the speed was indicating 70 it was in fact doing just 64.5.

So by this thinking then if it were indicating 75 then I would be at and actual 70 so allowing a margin for error I could get away with an indicated 82 much more than that then I bet the cameras would have taken a dim view of the rear of her car;!..

(* course that will depend to an amount on the tyre wear state)..

I suggest seeing that shes very dependant on her car to speak to a decent solicitor if she is charged with the offence.

At best a fine of a few hundred will give her a slap on the wrist but I bet a ban will see her seriously sodded up with the job. I once had my licence suspended for medical reasons for six months and it was a real PITA getting around and that was very local, it was just as well SWMBO had a variable hours part time job;)..

Yes I do take on board that sometimes there aren't enough hours in the day but these days is it really worth it pushing it to the limit?. Seeing the standard of driving there are a LOT of people who should not be there like a Doddery old Wally straddling Two lanes of the M11 last week at all of 40 MPH. No amount of headlight flashing would change his mind to either speed up or pull over.

Don't get me started on the standard of lorry driving on the A14 either!..

OK there are some good drivers but with them are a lot of Baaad ones and the law has to apply across the board and that I reckon is the way the bench will see that.

If she were my girl I think a fatherly lecture would be in order after all one other contributor to this ng has a daughter who is an ambulance paramedic and another is a traffic policeman and she'll tell you just how they Lurve NOT that job of telling the nearest and dearest that their lives are about to altered for good:(......

OK, but ISTR that this only applies in these parts to a first offence its I suppose deemed that if you've had the one then you should know better;!...

Err, no. They *over read*, as you yourself then state;

And it is legally required that they do not under read.

Tough s*it. Trying to get a ban waived "because of their job" is no excuse, should have thought of the consequences of speeding ... If getting from A to B is required you can hire driver.

Indeed for those in "high power" jobs surely a company supplied driver would be better for the company. Able to work while traveling, no stress from the driving, arrive fresher etc.

In the early 90's a friend of mine told a story about travelling through Lo ndon early one morning and was flashed by a static camera. A few miles lat er he was pulled over by a constable with a hand-held detector. He explain ed to the officer that he had just been flashed, so the officer declined to bother with his own paperwork. Turned out there must have been no film in the camera, as a penalty notice never came through from the fixed camera.. .

Matt

larkim put finger to keyboard:

That should make it *less* likely for the plod to not give a ticket. After all, the message clearly hadn't got through...