3 points or 6?

[Venisonpie]

Passed a mobile camera on the M40 this morning circa 90ish, is that 3 or 6 points coming my way? Had a clean licence for about 10 years so not sure what the punishment is now.

[QuickQuack]

Depends on how accurate your speedo is and which side of 90 you are with your "circa 90" estimate. The best guidance is from AGTLaw of this parish:

https://www.counsel.direct/news/2015/3/25/speeding...

Based on that (assuming no reduced limits were in force), if your measured speed is 90 or below, you're safely in the 3 point zone. 91 or above, get some lube...

Edited by QuickQuack on Saturday 16th March 10:36

[Venisonpie]

QuickQuack said:

Depends on how accurate your speedo is and which side of 90 you are with your "circa 90" estimate. The best guidance is from AGTLaw of this parish:

https://www.counsel.direct/news/2015/3/25/speeding...

Based on that (assuming no reduced limits were in force), if your measured speed is 90 or below, you're safely in the 3 point zone. 91 or above, get some lube...

Edited by QuickQuack on Saturday 16th March 10:36

Ta, suspect I'll be in the 79 to 95 but might squeak the 79 to 86. Defo not more than 95 so FPN likely.

Edit, it looks like the 2nd table applies if someone refuses the FPN first time round?

Edited by Venisonpie on Saturday 16th March 10:45

[Mammasaid]

QuackQuack said:

Depends on how accurate your speedo is and which side of 90 you are with your "circa 90" estimate (assuming no reduced limits were in force). The best guidance is from AGTLaw of this parish:

https://www.counsel.direct/news/2015/3/25/speeding...

Based on that, if your measured speed is 90 or below, you're safely in the 3 point zone. 91 or above, get some lube...

Er...no. If it was a 70 limit in force, it's more than likely to be an offer of a SAC up to 86 mph, or 3pts/£100 up to 95 mph. Only if recorded speed is over 95mph will it be more of an issue.

[QuickQuack]

Mammasaid said:

QuackQuack said:

Depends on how accurate your speedo is and which side of 90 you are with your "circa 90" estimate (assuming no reduced limits were in force). The best guidance is from AGTLaw of this parish:

https://www.counsel.direct/news/2015/3/25/speeding...

Based on that, if your measured speed is 90 or below, you're safely in the 3 point zone. 91 or above, get some lube...

Er...no. If it was a 70 limit in force, it's more than likely to be an offer of a SAC up to 86 mph, or 3pts/£100 up to 95 mph. Only if recorded speed is over 95mph will it be more of an issue.

Ah, yes, my mistake. I was looking at the wrong table. Thanks for correcting.

[QuickQuack]

Venisonpie said:

Ta, suspect I'll be in the 79 to 95 but might squeak the 79 to 86. Defo not more than 95 so FPN likely.

Edit, it looks like the 2nd table applies if someone refuses the FPN first time round?

Edited by Venisonpie on Saturday 16th March 10:45

Yes, I made a mistake as Mammasaid pointed out. As you also noticed, second table only applies if you end up in court which is highly unlikely. That's why AGT is the lawyer and I'm not. I'm the Quack.

[Venisonpie]

QuickQuack said:

Yes, I made a mistake as Mammasaid pointed out. As you also noticed, second table only applies if you end up in court which is highly unlikely. That's why AGT is the lawyer and I'm not. I'm the Quack.

Lol!

I'm curious now as to what it will end up being, I reckon I was at an indicated 92 when I clocked the van which at that time was probably at least 1/4 mile away and I slammed the brakes on hard. I don't know how their equipment works but if he got me when I saw him (my speedo is normally 2/3mph vs GPS speed) I'd say it's actual 89. However if the camera works on time and distance and I was slowing in the zone he was tracking me I might slip under the 86 into a speed awareness course.

Either way I have no complaints and only irritated by my stupidity.

[NFT]

Venisonpie said:

QuickQuack said:

Yes, I made a mistake as Mammasaid pointed out. As you also noticed, second table only applies if you end up in court which is highly unlikely. That's why AGT is the lawyer and I'm not. I'm the Quack.

Lol!

I'm curious now as to what it will end up being, I reckon I was at an indicated 92 when I clocked the van which at that time was probably at least 1/4 mile away and I slammed the brakes on hard. I don't know how their equipment works but if he got me when I saw him (my speedo is normally 2/3mph vs GPS speed) I'd say it's actual 89. However if the camera works on time and distance and I was slowing in the zone he was tracking me I might slip under the 86 into a speed awareness course.

Either way I have no complaints and only irritated by my stupidity.

Likely did it's business before you saw it, the main reason drivers suffer the "threat reaction" as if a sinkhole opened up.

Was the heavy braking somewhat instant on seeing the van, as if a sinkhole opened up?

[Venisonpie]

NFT said:

Likely did it's business before you saw it, the main reason drivers suffer the "threat reaction" as if a sinkhole opened up.

Was the heavy braking somewhat instant on seeing the van, as if a sinkhole opened up?

Yeah, that.

I think he'll have got me early on but I don't know what distance they work over.

[NFT]

Venisonpie said:

NFT said:

Likely did it's business before you saw it, the main reason drivers suffer the "threat reaction" as if a sinkhole opened up.

Was the heavy braking somewhat instant on seeing the van, as if a sinkhole opened up?

Yeah, that.

I think he'll have got me early on but I don't know what distance they work over.

I think its typically 1-2 miles range in clear line of sight..

Leaves no reaction time for drivers of all age's and experience. I'm against "no reaction time" enforcement that doesn't have a safe time to identify and react because it triggers a subconscious critical threat reaction, "safety" schemes however find it acceptable to endanger the road, esp fast roads in such a way, despite the confirmed situations of them causing incidents at speed. They just blame it on the driver.. Utter Madness..

[BertBert]

NFT said:

I think its typically 1-2 miles range in clear line of sight..

Leaves no reaction time for drivers of all age's and experience. I'm against "no reaction time" enforcement that doesn't have a safe time to identify and react because it triggers a subconscious critical threat reaction, "safety" schemes however find it acceptable to endanger the road, esp fast roads in such a way, despite the confirmed situations of them causing incidents at speed. They just blame it on the driver.. Utter Madness..

What? "endanger the road"?

[Vasco]

Venisonpie said:

Lol!

I'm curious now as to what it will end up being, I reckon I was at an indicated 92 when I clocked the van which at that time was probably at least 1/4 mile away and I slammed the brakes on hard. I don't know how their equipment works but if he got me when I saw him (my speedo is normally 2/3mph vs GPS speed) I'd say it's actual 89. However if the camera works on time and distance and I was slowing in the zone he was tracking me I might slip under the 86 into a speed awareness course.

Either way I have no complaints and only irritated by my stupidity.

Always amuses me how culprits accept they've been 'stupid' - but knew the limits before and took a conscious decision to ignore them.

Who would ever believe that 70mph is supposed to be the *maximum* limit.....!!

[Ian Geary]

Venisonpie said:

Either way I have no complaints and only irritated by my stupidity.

Nothing to add, but I applaud this attitude.

We all know speeding is illegal, but is not always dangerous.

If we're caught: just take it on the chin, as the op is doing.

Being curious about the outcome is only natural.

I am awaiting a letter from Sussex's ticketing unit to see what they decide, but as I was handed the nip at the roadside, I think I have about 5 more months to wait...

[Mammasaid]

QuickQuack said:

Ah, yes, my mistake. I was looking at the wrong table. Thanks for correcting.

[NFT]

BertBert said:

NFT said:

I think its typically 1-2 miles range in clear line of sight..

Leaves no reaction time for drivers of all age's and experience. I'm against "no reaction time" enforcement that doesn't have a safe time to identify and react because it triggers a subconscious critical threat reaction, "safety" schemes however find it acceptable to endanger the road, esp fast roads in such a way, despite the confirmed situations of them causing incidents at speed. They just blame it on the driver.. Utter Madness..

What? "endanger the road"?

Indeed, as occurs regularly, drivers (speeding or not) suffer the threat response, to increased likelihood they & others will be in an incident that could see road gouging/charring/soaking (with various human and auto parts and fluids). It really isn't good for the road or its surface at all.

[BertBert]

NFT said:

Indeed, as occurs regularly, drivers (speeding or not) suffer the threat response, to increased likelihood they & others will be in an incident that could see road gouging/charring/soaking (with various human and auto parts and fluids). It really isn't good for the road or its surface at all.

You've just made that up. How frequently?

[Sheepshanks]

NFT said:

Venisonpie said:

NFT said:

Likely did it's business before you saw it, the main reason drivers suffer the "threat reaction" as if a sinkhole opened up.

Was the heavy braking somewhat instant on seeing the van, as if a sinkhole opened up?

Yeah, that.

I think he'll have got me early on but I don't know what distance they work over.

I think its typically 1-2 miles range in clear line of sight..

Unless it’s changed in the last few years, the kit is certified up to 1000 metres. I watched one of those Police docs where they were using one and they were typically speed checking at around 600 metres then marking another freeze frame (it takes video continuously) when the car was closer to capture its number plate.

When I got done in Cheshire the guy was on a bridge using a tripod camera off to the side with trees behind him and the setting sun behind them - so he was invisible until I was very close. Was doing 85.

I used to drive pretty well the length of the M40 regularly and often saw them in various places.

[NFT]

BertBert said:

You've just made that up. How frequently?

Exactly, how frequently does subconscious critical-threat response heavy-braking & resulting incidents occur, how bad are they, how often and how can they be prevented or mitigated?

That and other risks should be very well documented in a transparent risk assessment as part of due considerations, in good competence; but instead incidents are blamed on drivers, no one seems to want to reveal how frequent the reaction occurs; the severity, speeds, incident numbers and driver demographics for each road and limit, important info & stats to make fit conclusions and decisions in due diligence, care and consideration, are left unclear. And where a severe incident has occurred, esp. loss of control, wreck or collision, no one wants to comment and there is precedent of footage being denied.

Placing the road risk on high speed roads, knowing it will cause the reaction and incidents have occurred with people (of all demographics and capacity to recover) close to and above the limit, not just, but esp. on high speed roads, targeting roads with speeding and therefor scheme creating a greater risk of the reaction and incident, and with no consideration to scheme presence caused risk and incidents is a recklessness too far.

Add the clear targeting of safe drivers at signs, and trying to enroll them or allege action is genuinely needed in the name of safety, creating a large group of drivers going through "the motions" incl whilst behind the wheel, leaving schemes persistently creating and maintaining a large group of drivers that are less safe than before their action, wherever they go, seeing schemes create and spread road risk far and wide; and any notion schemes are fit, properly run and genuinely interested in improving road safety goes out the window for me.

[BertBert]

NFT said:

BertBert said:

You've just made that up. How frequently?

Exactly, how frequently does subconscious critical-threat response heavy-braking & resulting incidents occur, how bad are they, how often and how can they be prevented or mitigated?

That and other risks should be very well documented in a transparent risk assessment as part of due considerations, in good competence; but instead incidents are blamed on drivers, no one seems to want to reveal how frequent the reaction occurs; the severity, speeds, incident numbers and driver demographics for each road and limit, important info & stats to make fit conclusions and decisions in due diligence, care and consideration, are left unclear. And where a severe incident has occurred, esp. loss of control, wreck or collision, no one wants to comment and there is precedent of footage being denied.

Placing the road risk on high speed roads, knowing it will cause the reaction and incidents have occurred with people (of all demographics and capacity to recover) close to and above the limit, not just, but esp. on high speed roads, targeting roads with speeding and therefor scheme creating a greater risk of the reaction and incident, and with no consideration to scheme presence caused risk and incidents is a recklessness too far.

Add the clear targeting of safe drivers at signs, and trying to enroll them or allege action is genuinely needed in the name of safety, creating a large group of drivers going through "the motions" incl whilst behind the wheel, leaving schemes persistently creating and maintaining a large group of drivers that are less safe than before their action, wherever they go, seeing schemes create and spread road risk far and wide; and any notion schemes are fit, properly run and genuinely interested in improving road safety goes out the window for me.

So you don't know then. Making it up.

[NFT]

BertBert said:

So you don't know then. Making it up.

Serious incidents have occurred due to the presence resulting in a critical-threat braking response, with loss of control, smashing into crash barriers, sliding across the road and violent spinning etc.., not knowing how frequently something occurs, does not mean it is "made up".