Caught speeding twice in a minute.
Discussion
Woman says speed camera caught her speeding twice in a minute
A woman says she's been caught speeding twice in the space of sixty seconds by the same speed camera.
Sales rep Vanessa Blount says she will argue in court that the two offences, detected on January 30, should be treated as one.
She was travelling down the 30mph Gipsy Patch Lane, Little Stoke, when she was clocked doing 40mph, reports the Bristol Evening Post.
On the way back she was filmed doing 41mph. Mrs Blount, who faces a fine of anything from £120 to £1,000 and six penalty points, is vowing to contest her case in court.
She said: "I've got two young children and I know the importance of keeping my speed down."
Mrs Blount, 35, who drives 35,000 miles a year as part of her job, ran into trouble while trying to find the house where her four-year old son James was due to attend a birthday party.
The first alleged offence was at 17 seconds past 3.43pm while the second was at 17 seconds past 3.44pm.
Dave Gollicker, of the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, said: "People ought to be aware of the speed limit.
"If people drive at an excess speed, they will be caught. Being caught twice would be treated as two separate offences. We would not have known it was the same vehicle until the whole film was processed.
So WTF was she doing, doing 10 miles over the limit on a road that has speed cameras, TWICE!!! What a numpty
A woman says she's been caught speeding twice in the space of sixty seconds by the same speed camera.
Sales rep Vanessa Blount says she will argue in court that the two offences, detected on January 30, should be treated as one.
She was travelling down the 30mph Gipsy Patch Lane, Little Stoke, when she was clocked doing 40mph, reports the Bristol Evening Post.
On the way back she was filmed doing 41mph. Mrs Blount, who faces a fine of anything from £120 to £1,000 and six penalty points, is vowing to contest her case in court.
She said: "I've got two young children and I know the importance of keeping my speed down."
Mrs Blount, 35, who drives 35,000 miles a year as part of her job, ran into trouble while trying to find the house where her four-year old son James was due to attend a birthday party.
The first alleged offence was at 17 seconds past 3.43pm while the second was at 17 seconds past 3.44pm.
Dave Gollicker, of the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, said: "People ought to be aware of the speed limit.
"If people drive at an excess speed, they will be caught. Being caught twice would be treated as two separate offences. We would not have known it was the same vehicle until the whole film was processed.
She said: "I've got two young children and I know the importance of keeping my speed down."
So WTF was she doing, doing 10 miles over the limit on a road that has speed cameras, TWICE!!! What a numpty
like a 4 year old knows if they're late for a birthday party... jeez.
i don't have any children. Does that mean i do not know the importance of speed limits.
This excuse sounds exactly like that you would expect from someone (and i'm making a great big assumption here but hell why not) who most likely spouts on at the way OTHER drivers break limits and the IMPORTANCE of introducing 15mph limits to protect the likes of her two children.
It also illustrates who the real dangers on the road are.
Getting caught by a camera once is unfortunate and can be put down to momentary loss of concentration.
Getting caught twice.........suggests a lack of awareness of her surroundings, a surrender of self-control to her stressed out mind, and possibly an arrogant disregard for the consequences of two catches based on a hope that "the needs of my two golden children must outway all other considerations :wrings hands:"
This excuse sounds exactly like that you would expect from someone (and i'm making a great big assumption here but hell why not) who most likely spouts on at the way OTHER drivers break limits and the IMPORTANCE of introducing 15mph limits to protect the likes of her two children.
It also illustrates who the real dangers on the road are.
Getting caught by a camera once is unfortunate and can be put down to momentary loss of concentration.
Getting caught twice.........suggests a lack of awareness of her surroundings, a surrender of self-control to her stressed out mind, and possibly an arrogant disregard for the consequences of two catches based on a hope that "the needs of my two golden children must outway all other considerations :wrings hands:"
How very true...Similar thing happened when there were massive roadworks on the M5 at Avonmouth near Bristol. As I recall, there were 4 separate scameras on a nice downhill stretch leading up to the roadworks, which were all in the temporary 50 limit (downhill - nice placement for maximum revenue, bastards!)
Anyway, a number of people were caught 4 times as they drove through the whole stretch of road (only about a mile) - so 4 x 3 points = ban.
I know that a couple of people got let off the ban by claiming that they were only speeding once, and just happened to be scamerad 4 times while they were doing it.
HOWEVER - the stupid woman was caught by the same camera so she can hardly claim this defence, can she? It's clearly 2 offences.
"I've got two young children and I know the importance of keeping my speed down."
Well you should have, then, shouldn't you, numpty?
Anyway, a number of people were caught 4 times as they drove through the whole stretch of road (only about a mile) - so 4 x 3 points = ban.
I know that a couple of people got let off the ban by claiming that they were only speeding once, and just happened to be scamerad 4 times while they were doing it.
HOWEVER - the stupid woman was caught by the same camera so she can hardly claim this defence, can she? It's clearly 2 offences.
"I've got two young children and I know the importance of keeping my speed down."
Well you should have, then, shouldn't you, numpty?
The lady's done well to be caught twice by the same camera..she'd have to drive past at 41mph turn round,drive past it on the other side of the road,turn round again and drive past again at 41 mph, all in a minute.....makes you wonder about either the story or the reliability of said camera's clock.Unless of course she " went round the block".
Local knowledge:
The camera was in a van and the road in question has only recently been restricted to 30 (used to be 40).
To have been caught once in each direction on the road in question within 60 seconds, she must have been at the end with a roundabout, where it is a 4 lane dual carriageway.
The camera operator must have broken all known records to get the kit facing the other way within 60 seconds and (IMO) must have deliberately targeted the same car twice in a row - unfair? As I've said before on a previous thread, a traffic copper would have given a ticket or a warning the 1st time and that would have been it.
Therefore, I say she's been shafted good 'n' proper.
gits.
>> Edited by pdv6 on Thursday 6th March 13:58
The camera was in a van and the road in question has only recently been restricted to 30 (used to be 40).
To have been caught once in each direction on the road in question within 60 seconds, she must have been at the end with a roundabout, where it is a 4 lane dual carriageway.
The camera operator must have broken all known records to get the kit facing the other way within 60 seconds and (IMO) must have deliberately targeted the same car twice in a row - unfair? As I've said before on a previous thread, a traffic copper would have given a ticket or a warning the 1st time and that would have been it.
Therefore, I say she's been shafted good 'n' proper.
gits. >> Edited by pdv6 on Thursday 6th March 13:58
I hope this gets treated as 1 offence otherwise it shows what a joke the British Justice system is.
The bottom line is that there are 2 peices of evidence for the same offence, therfore she only commited 1 offence.
I believe that there is a Double Jeopardy Rule, that means that people cannot be tried twice for te same offence, for example:
If a mugging is witnessed by more than one person,
the mugger is only tried once, and if he gets off,
he cannot be tried again for that offence, even if
more witnesses come forward, or new evidence is
obtained.
If this is treated as 2 offences, then what is stopping the Safety Camera Partnership making the cameras take 16 pictures and then prosecuting the driver doing 35 in a 30 for 4 offences of speeding in the space of a second??
The bottom line is that there are 2 peices of evidence for the same offence, therfore she only commited 1 offence.
I believe that there is a Double Jeopardy Rule, that means that people cannot be tried twice for te same offence, for example:
If a mugging is witnessed by more than one person,
the mugger is only tried once, and if he gets off,
he cannot be tried again for that offence, even if
more witnesses come forward, or new evidence is
obtained.
If this is treated as 2 offences, then what is stopping the Safety Camera Partnership making the cameras take 16 pictures and then prosecuting the driver doing 35 in a 30 for 4 offences of speeding in the space of a second??
pdv6 said: Local knowledge:
The camera was in a van and the road in question has only recently been restricted to 30 (used to be 40).
To have been caught once in each direction on the road in question within 60 seconds, she must have been at the end with a roundabout, where it is a 4 lane dual carriageway.
The camera operator must have broken all known records to get the kit facing the other way within 60 seconds and (IMO) must have deliberately targeted the same car twice in a row - unfair? As I've said before on a previous thread, a traffic copper would have given a ticket or a warning the 1st time and that would have been it.
Therefore, I say she's been shafted good 'n' proper.
>> Edited by pdv6 on Thursday 6th March 13:58
there's always two sides to a story, can't help but agree with pdv6 on this one
Just seen the photos on the front of the local rag. One photo is of her heading away from the camera, the next heading towards it. In the shot of her heading away from the camera, there's another car heading towards it which partly obscures her car. Could be this one that's speeding and not her? Then again, she's as good as admitted it so they'll probably get both drivers now.
hertsbiker said:
But the hardest to stick to. Especially when a lot of 30's used to be NSL.... we know it sucks, they know, except they make it hurt by fining you.
i quite agree, hence the 'built up areas'. Which might have been better put as 'Residential areas or outside schools'. I've no quibbles with breaking 30's which extend miles into open country on wide, straight roads and drive as the environment, and conditions dictate.
So she was trying to find the house where her son was going to a Birthday party eh?
Most of us tend to slow down when we are trying to find a house (by number or name) so why did she speed up?????
Typical, I bet she also treble parks outside her local school to let Tarquin hop out right outside the main gate as well.
Most of us tend to slow down when we are trying to find a house (by number or name) so why did she speed up?????
Typical, I bet she also treble parks outside her local school to let Tarquin hop out right outside the main gate as well.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff