|
Who me ?
3,868 posts
81 months
|
|
|
TankRizzo
2,191 posts
62 months
|
Are people having reading difficulties?
|
|
|
oldsoak
5,585 posts
71 months
|
TankRizzo said: Are people having reading difficulties? Apparently so... It's 31 in a 20 chaps.... as you were.... 
|
|
|
Manicminer
2,563 posts
66 months
|
|
|
Exige S
156 posts
20 months
|
Manicminer said:  Is that clear enough  According to the OP, apparently not! Sorry OP, can't pass up an opportunity like that!
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Rowan138
213 posts
20 months
|
iirc speedometers dont have to be accurate at 20mph and below so the ticket is easily contestable in court
|
|
|
lazystudent
1,512 posts
30 months
|
Rowan138 said: iirc speedometers dont have to be accurate at 20mph and below so the ticket is easily contestable in court That's what I'd heard- calibration is not required below a certain threshold- I know in my old Clio the needle wouldn't rest exactly on 0 and that it would get more accurate at speed. Might be worth having a trawl through Pepipoo or some other forum and looking at past cases?
|
|
|
Rude-boy
15,547 posts
102 months
|
Trif said: It is a 20mph limit with the normal 20 signs in red circles. It does take a fair amount of concentration to stick at 20, if I go in 3rd gear my speed tends to increase if there is little traffic so tend to be anti social and use 2nd. 20mph limits are bloody antisocial other than such as at peak times outside schools and the such like. I will grant you that the seafront might also be somewhere it is partly justifiable. Use 1st you big girl 
|
|
|
Snowboy
3,255 posts
20 months
|
No point in going to court.
The courts don’t like the extra expense so you’ll possible get charged more or have to pay a surchanrge.
If your excuse is that you didn’t see the change in speed limit then you’re setting yourself up for a ‘due care and attention’ problem too.
For what it’s worth – just pat the fine, take the points and move on.
If you want to explain to three strangers why you were speeding then just post on here.
|
|
|
silverfoxcc
1,165 posts
14 months
|
Trawling the depths of my brain, isn't there something in the traffic regs about repeater signs?
and any speed other than 30 mph must have them shown, otherwise its not enforcable (although Tower Bridges hasnt got them, or is it because its too short, and is ther a 30mph sign visible from where the 20 mph starts?
|
|
|
supersport
1,569 posts
96 months
|
lazystudent said: Rowan138 said: iirc speedometers dont have to be accurate at 20mph and below so the ticket is easily contestable in court That's what I'd heard- calibration is not required below a certain threshold- I know in my old Clio the needle wouldn't rest exactly on 0 and that it would get more accurate at speed. Might be worth having a trawl through Pepipoo or some other forum and looking at past cases? But he got caught at 31, it matters not one jot if the speedo doesn't work at 20. There is not argument that 31 isn't greater than 20 and by quite a large margin.
|
|
|
Dave_M
5,077 posts
93 months
|
Rowan138 said: iirc speedometers dont have to be accurate at 20mph and below so the ticket is easily contestable in court Not an expert on this but the issue is what speed the vehicle is / was doing. As said earlier, speeding is a strict liability offence so the offence is simply to exceed irrespective of the 'indicated' speed on the speedo. Our cars are not accurately calibrated (as opposed to speed testing equipment), the legal requirement relating to the actual speed against the indicated speed in the vehicle relates only to the manufacturer not to the user (I think).
|
|
|
oyster
5,220 posts
117 months
|
TankRizzo said: Are people having reading difficulties? They aren't reading the posts. They merely read the title and hit reply. I bet they don't even return to this thread.
|
|
|
KevinA3DSG32
6,078 posts
149 months
|
tbc said: There is not a hope in hell of this holding up in court. I know a few people who have been caught doing 31/32 in a 30
they fought it all the way to court
AND WON Apart from it not being relevant to the OP I call BS! Nobody has been charged with 31 or 32 in a 30. If they have lets see the documents.
|
|
|
Snowboy
3,255 posts
20 months
|
KevinA3DSG32 said: Apart from it not being relevant to the OP I call BS! Nobody has been charged with 31 or 32 in a 30. If they have lets see the documents. Without wanting to go Off Topic too much. I have in relatively good authority that people have been charged with 31 or 32 in a 30. But, on investigation we find that they were recorded at 38mph. When the speed is adjusted for 10% on the speedo, 10% on the camera and other adjustments then the final provable-in-court minimum speed them must have been travelling is 31 or 32. So that’s what they get charged with. (10% is an indicative figure, I don’t know that actual law.)
|
|
|
Orillion
101 posts
34 months
|
Snowboy said: KevinA3DSG32 said: Apart from it not being relevant to the OP I call BS! Nobody has been charged with 31 or 32 in a 30. If they have lets see the documents. Without wanting to go Off Topic too much. I have in relatively good authority that people have been charged with 31 or 32 in a 30. But, on investigation we find that they were recorded at 38mph. When the speed is adjusted for 10% on the speedo, 10% on the camera and other adjustments then the final provable-in-court minimum speed them must have been travelling is 31 or 32. So that’s what they get charged with. (10% is an indicative figure, I don’t know that actual law.) Could we see some evidence, please?
|
|
|
Frik
11,954 posts
112 months
|
silverfoxcc said: Trawling the depths of my brain, isn't there something in the traffic regs about repeater signs?
and any speed other than 30 mph must have them shown, otherwise its not enforcable (although Tower Bridges hasnt got them, or is it because its too short, and is ther a 30mph sign visible from where the 20 mph starts? The repeateers need to be 100-900 metres apart so presumably that's why Tower Bridge doesn't require them.
|
|
|
Snowboy
3,255 posts
20 months
|
Orillion said: Snowboy said: KevinA3DSG32 said: Apart from it not being relevant to the OP I call BS! Nobody has been charged with 31 or 32 in a 30. If they have lets see the documents. Without wanting to go Off Topic too much. I have in relatively good authority that people have been charged with 31 or 32 in a 30. But, on investigation we find that they were recorded at 38mph. When the speed is adjusted for 10% on the speedo, 10% on the camera and other adjustments then the final provable-in-court minimum speed them must have been travelling is 31 or 32. So that’s what they get charged with. (10% is an indicative figure, I don’t know that actual law.) Could we see some evidence, please? I’m afraid not. All I have is anecdotal ‘evidence’. My mate Tom was done for 33, at his speed awareness course he met people who were there for 31 and 32. The bloke running the course used the previous explanation when he was questioned about the tolerance of speed guns and speedos. If you want me to, next time I see Tom I’ll kick him in the nuts and call him a liar.
|
|
|
jwill
28 posts
15 months
|
Dave_M said: Courts of course have the option to dismiss if they wish though Courts do dismiss cases when the prosecution offer no evidence. Have you any information about dismissing cases in other circumstances?
|
|
|
jwill
28 posts
15 months
|
Snowboy said: When the speed is adjusted for 10% on the speedo, 10% on the camera and other adjustments then the final provable-in-court minimum speed them must have been travelling is 31 or 32. This doesn't happen. The speed charged is the speed registered by the camera or speed gun.
|
|
