Totting up ban coming !!

[JNW1]

Sa Calobra said:

JNW1 said:

You keep talking as if the OP had a lack of awareness of his driving environment - and missed speeding cameras which should have been very obvious - but what evidence do you have for that assertion? I agree missing painted fixed cameras is careless but mobile cameras are often well concealed and by the time even an observant driver has seen them it could be too late as you can be "pinged" from half a mile away (or more). In that situation you can obviously criticise someone for breaking the speed limit but I don't think it necessarily follows that they've been unaware of their driving environment in the way you continue to imply.

Do you struggle with mobile cameras?

No, the only point I'm making is mobile cameras are often rather less obvious and visible than their fixed counterparts; given they also have a relatively long range I'd say even an observant, aware, driver, could fall foul of such a device.

[giantdefy]

JNW1 said:

No, the only point I'm making is mobile cameras are often rather less obvious and visible than their fixed counterparts; given they also have a relatively long range I'd say even an observant, aware, driver, could fall foul of such a device.

Only if the 'observant, aware, driver,' were to fail to observe and be aware of the prevailing speed limit

[cmaguire]

Sa Calobra said:

Do you struggle with mobile cameras?

They are the only cameras that catch me. Usually where it doesn't matter a damn anyway as they only care about how many they can catch rather than why they should be catching them.

[cmaguire]

giantdefy said:

Only if the 'observant, aware, driver,' were to fail to observe and be aware of the prevailing speed limit

Obeying the speed limit doesn't make them significantly more visible, it merely means you don't need to look for them in the first place.
Unfortunately, obeying the speed limit tends to be exceptionally tedious for the most part, particularly when there is no convincing argument for doing so bar the punishment.

[JNW1]

giantdefy said:

JNW1 said:

No, the only point I'm making is mobile cameras are often rather less obvious and visible than their fixed counterparts; given they also have a relatively long range I'd say even an observant, aware, driver, could fall foul of such a device.

Only if the 'observant, aware, driver,' were to fail to observe and be aware of the prevailing speed limit

Indeed but I was responding to Sa Calobra and that wasn't the type of awareness to which he was referring!

[surveyor_101]

Phil Dicky said:

I have a parent with Alzeimers so my licence is quite important in that respect. Yes I know should be more careful, but ive cocked up looking at a ban so any advice?

You need a solicitor as 4 sp30s in 6 months or less and then you go well "I need my licence because", ain't going to wash in my opinion. It shows you have been smashing around and knew you needed your licence and carried on after 6 or 9 points.

Why specifically do you need you licence to help a parent that illness you can bus/train to them or them around.

I have been in a similar position as you however my totting up took 3 years not months.

It really depends how you present your case and if the JPs by your need to transport or travel by car to help your ill parent.

The short period is shocking and may well not go in your favour. Plus SP30 implies mostly built up areas.

[Durzel]

JNW1 said:

You keep talking as if the OP had a lack of awareness of his driving environment - and missed speeding cameras which should have been very obvious - but what evidence do you have for that assertion? I agree missing painted fixed cameras is careless but mobile cameras are often well concealed and by the time even an observant driver has seen them it could be too late as you can be "pinged" from half a mile away (or more). In that situation you can obviously criticise someone for breaking the speed limit but I don't think it necessarily follows that they've been unaware of their driving environment in the way you continue to imply.

I don't think anyone particularly likes speed cameras, but it takes a special brand of idiocy to drive as if they don't exist, when a mobile camera could pretty much be anywhere with no notice.

If you're on 9 points then the only logical thing you can do is not to speed anywhere where you can't see far enough ahead of you that you know it is impossible for you to be caught, or simply not to speed at all. That way you wouldn't even need to worry about where the next camera might be because it's irrelevant to you.

That's not giving in, that's just practical license-saving behaviour. The relevance of how the other points were accrued is entirely academic really. So long as they exist, and are active, you have to behave accordingly if you actually do care about your licence. Any behaviour to the contrary is quite frankly idiotic.

[JNW1]

Durzel said:

JNW1 said:

You keep talking as if the OP had a lack of awareness of his driving environment - and missed speeding cameras which should have been very obvious - but what evidence do you have for that assertion? I agree missing painted fixed cameras is careless but mobile cameras are often well concealed and by the time even an observant driver has seen them it could be too late as you can be "pinged" from half a mile away (or more). In that situation you can obviously criticise someone for breaking the speed limit but I don't think it necessarily follows that they've been unaware of their driving environment in the way you continue to imply.

I don't think anyone particularly likes speed cameras, but it takes a special brand of idiocy to drive as if they don't exist, when a mobile camera could pretty much be anywhere with no notice.

If you're on 9 points then the only logical thing you can do is not to speed anywhere where you can't see far enough ahead of you that you know it is impossible for you to be caught, or simply not to speed at all. That way you wouldn't even need to worry about where the next camera might be because it's irrelevant to you.

That's not giving in, that's just practical license-saving behaviour. The relevance of how the other points were accrued is entirely academic really. So long as they exist, and are active, you have to behave accordingly if you actually do care about your licence. Any behaviour to the contrary is quite frankly idiotic.

I understand the sentiment about needing to exercise greater care if you're on 9 points! However, the suggestion to the OP was that he needed to go to Specsavers because he was continually missing brightly painted cameras and all I was saying was that there's no evidence to suggest his convictions had been accumulated in that way. I would contend that mobile cameras are often much less easy to spot and hence a driver can fall foul of one of those even if they're paying attention and spot one from a fair distance away...

[vonhosen]

For endorsement avoidance a better plan than paying attention to the cameras is to give that attention to limit adherence.

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

For endorsement avoidance a better plan than paying attention to the cameras is to give that attention to limit adherence.

Agreed, there's no doubt meek compliance is the safest way to ensure licence preservation.

However, the OP was being accused of failing to see the driving environment (brightly painted cameras) around him and I'm not sure there's any evidence of that. Of course he's broken the speed limit at least 4 times within a 3-year period but I suspect that applies to many on the roads - difference is he got caught 4 times!

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

For endorsement avoidance a better plan than paying attention to the cameras is to give that attention to limit adherence.

Stop reducing limits and compliance would improve. The authorities are making changes to existing limits that will inevitably result in compliance issues. Dreaming about an 80mph Motorway limit is just that, the real problem now is failing to preserve the limits we had.

[Monkeylegend]

Phil Dicky said:

.Im ex Police so used to court and explain mitigation through well enough.

Edited by Phil Dicky on Friday 28th April 10:40

Edited by Phil Dicky on Friday 28th April 10:42

I would be surprised if OP didn't have good observational skills.

[The Surveyor]

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

For endorsement avoidance a better plan than paying attention to the cameras is to give that attention to limit adherence.

Agreed, there's no doubt meek compliance is the safest way to ensure licence preservation.

However, the OP was being accused of failing to see the driving environment (brightly painted cameras) around him and I'm not sure there's any evidence of that. Of course he's broken the speed limit at least 4 times within a 3-year period but I suspect that applies to many on the roads - difference is he got caught 4 times!

Exceeding the speed limit is a risk assessment, ignore any aspect of whether the limit or it's enforcement is fair for a second and assess the risk of loosing your licence. The OP had been pinged 3 times in 6 months (not a 3 year period) so should have been assessing the risk that he was getting the balance badly wrong in those 6 months and maybe he should temper his enthusiasm otherwise a totting up ban would be inevitable. Especially if he needs his licence for personal care reasons.

Caught 4 times in 6 months, that's not bad luck, it's carelessness.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

cmaguire said:

Stop reducing limits and compliance would improve.

I'm not sure that's true. The m/way limit is 70, and most people take that to mean they can do 80 and are unlikely to get gone. Raise that to 80 and most people would then up their speed to 90 in the knowledge they'd probably be ok.

Of course, if you set it high enough eventually you'd get mass compliance.

The limits are what they are. When you get onto 6 or 9 points, stick to them 24/7. That's not meek compliance, it's basic common sense mixed with self preservation.

[cmaguire]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

cmaguire said:

Stop reducing limits and compliance would improve.

I'm not sure that's true. The m/way limit is 70, and most people take that to mean they can do 80 and are unlikely to get gone. Raise that to 80 and most people would then up their speed to 90 in the knowledge they'd probably be ok.

Of course, if you set it high enough eventually you'd get mass compliance.

The limits are what they are. When you get onto 6 or 9 points, stick to them 24/7. That's not meek compliance, it's basic common sense mixed with self preservation.

The limit is 80 in France. I drive a lot in France. The majority of drivers travel at a similar speed to here. Your suggestion that raising a limit here from 70 to 80 will mean drivers would then mostly go 10mph faster just doesn't stack up. At what point does this increase stop? 150mph? Or at each driver's max vehicle speed, because everybody want's to thrash the daylights out of their vehicle and only the law is stopping them?
Besides which the problem I highlighted is non-compliance created by reducing limits. If drivers find themselves on a road that they previously travelled as a 70 but that has been reduced to a 60, or on a new road that bears a striking resemblence to the 70 road they were on 30 minutes before yet strangely this road has a blanket 50 limit on it, then I'll eat my hat if non-compliance with the limit does not increase.

[Engineer792]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

cmaguire said:

Stop reducing limits and compliance would improve.

I'm not sure that's true. The m/way limit is 70, and most people take that to mean they can do 80 and are unlikely to get gone. Raise that to 80 and most people would then up their speed to 90 in the knowledge they'd probably be ok.

Of course, if you set it high enough eventually you'd get mass compliance.

The limits are what they are. When you get onto 6 or 9 points, stick to them 24/7. That's not meek compliance, it's basic common sense mixed with self preservation.

I think raising the limit above 90mph would have little or no effect, as it seems most people are happy at around 85.

By and large, drivers do think of the limit as being just that - a limit - and not so much as a guide to what speed to do. If the limit is substantially lower than the speed they would have chosen then they tend to drive at or above the limit. The limit does however have a tempering effect.
If the limit is higher than their chosen speed then they tend to stick to their chosen speed, speeding up only when necessary. This can be seen by the fact that even though most single-track country lanes are NSL, people seldom reach speeds of much more than 30mph on them. If you increased urban speed limits it would make hardly any difference to speeds in residential areas, although people might speed up a bit on arterial roads.

[JNW1]

The Surveyor said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

For endorsement avoidance a better plan than paying attention to the cameras is to give that attention to limit adherence.

Agreed, there's no doubt meek compliance is the safest way to ensure licence preservation.

However, the OP was being accused of failing to see the driving environment (brightly painted cameras) around him and I'm not sure there's any evidence of that. Of course he's broken the speed limit at least 4 times within a 3-year period but I suspect that applies to many on the roads - difference is he got caught 4 times!

Exceeding the speed limit is a risk assessment, ignore any aspect of whether the limit or it's enforcement is fair for a second and assess the risk of loosing your licence. The OP had been pinged 3 times in 6 months (not a 3 year period) so should have been assessing the risk that he was getting the balance badly wrong in those 6 months and maybe he should temper his enthusiasm otherwise a totting up ban would be inevitable. Especially if he needs his licence for personal care reasons.

Caught 4 times in 6 months, that's not bad luck, it's carelessness.

Durzel made the comment earlier in the thread that it makes sense to exercise restraint if you've accumulated 9 points and I agree completely; personally I'd be getting pretty nervous at 6 points and would temper my enthusiasm accordingly.

For whatever reason the OP doesn't appear to have done so but I still don't think there's enough information in the thread to say whether or not he needs to visit Specsavers. He may have been caught by four brightly painted fixed cameras (in which case Specsavers may indeed be appropriate!) but equally he could have been caught by (say) mobile cameras sitting on flyovers and or traffic police sitting up sliproads; that being the case his eyesight may be fine even if his attitude to speed limits when on 9 points was questionable!

[Engineer792]

Or he might have been caught two or three times before the FPN from the first one landed on his doormat.
Long shot I know, but it's a possibility

[Phil Dicky]

Monkeylegend said:

Phil Dicky said:

.Im ex Police so used to court and explain mitigation through well enough.

Edited by Phil Dicky on Friday 28th April 10:40

Edited by Phil Dicky on Friday 28th April 10:42

I would be surprised if OP didn't have good observational skills.

Normally very good, but two vans on two occasion well hidden on roads I didn't know at all, and a pull from plain traffic car on a section of road moving from a 50 to a 30 where I didn't kill my speed enough. A common pull for them which was why they were there. Last occasion me just being a slack tt

[Monkeylegend]

Phil Dicky said:

Monkeylegend said:

Phil Dicky said:

.Im ex Police so used to court and explain mitigation through well enough.

Edited by Phil Dicky on Friday 28th April 10:40

Edited by Phil Dicky on Friday 28th April 10:42

I would be surprised if OP didn't have good observational skills.

Normally very good, but two vans on two occasion well hidden on roads I didn't know at all, and a pull from plain traffic car on a section of road moving from a 50 to a 30 where I didn't kill my speed enough. A common pull for them which was why they were there. Last occasion me just being a slack tt

Could easily happen to most bar the driving gods