mitigation

Author
Discussion

hertsbiker

Original Poster:

6,319 posts

273 months

Friday 23rd November 2001
quotequote all
a long while ago I asked about placement of Mobile Camera Vans.

The reason I asked was that I got a ticket whilst avoiding an accident.

I explained to the ticket office, and they said to write it down on the driver ID form.

Sent it off, heard nothing for ages, and then it arrives.

Yep, I have been kindly "offered" a FPN, 3 points and 60 quid fine.

Hmmm. Looks like my mitigation didn't work then.

Phoned Penalty Clerk, and explained. She then told me that my mitigation had been considered, and they thought they would win in court.

I told her that she being "one of them" would naturally say this, and could I have a court hearing please.

Can anyone tell me if I did wrong?

My mitigation is this;-


Began to overtake apparently parked vehicle. Said vehicle moves off when I am on top of it, turning right into side road. I have no where to go, except to gas it past.

Here is the irony, the camera van was parked just after the right turn !!

Thus I was still doing +10mph over the speed limit.

Bad luck really, I don't speed in town, on NSL I admit I give it some, but this was unfair.


I'm gonna go to court, unless any of you guys thinks I'm going to get a bigger fine....


Advice please!


plotloss

67,280 posts

272 months

Friday 23rd November 2001
quotequote all
That sounds harsh!

I'm no lawyer but your circumstances do sound highly mitigating.

They should be utilising these vans near accident blackspots and if you reacted in a fashion that avoided an accident then surely by their own motives they cannot prosecute you as you were merely doing the same as them. Although I dont think this is a defence given our court system.

You avoided an obstruction in the road who through poor observation caused you to be in an endangered situation that only the application measured and restrained acceleation would have avoided. Its a fair excuse certaintly and if they are to keep to this charter of cameras reduce accidents then their photographic evidence and testimony should prove your case not theirs.

Good luck and let us know how you get on though!

Nightmare

5,200 posts

286 months

Friday 23rd November 2001
quotequote all
I'd go for it too - you may not get off, but they won't fine you higher for trying this one, and it does sound very unfair.

be prepared for the counter argument of

a) you should have been more aware that the vehicle wasnt parked (looked through rear window for driver etc...)
b) if the only option left to you is to accelerate then you havent thought far enough ahead

or similar...obviously they're t*ss!, but worth thinking about counter arguments/explanations of your own!

Night

mel

10,168 posts

277 months

Friday 23rd November 2001
quotequote all
yep go for it.

on the last point the angle of view from a bike is higher so the ability to see a driver in their seat in diminished obviously

and b) you were using your abilities and resorces available to best avoid an accident and inconvinence other road users, you had limited knowledge of proximity of following vehicles as sports bike mirrors are notoriosuly poor hence all the enforces on the "life saver look" on a bike test.

try and think of any other arguements that may be thrown at you go for an oscar winning performance.

Oh yes we believe you thousands wouldn't I'd bet a packet of hob knobs you were going for it

hertsbiker

Original Poster:

6,319 posts

273 months

Friday 23rd November 2001
quotequote all
Hmm. Wasn't "going for it".

you couldn't see the driver, the car looked parked to me.

You could wait all day just incase someone moves off. I went wide, but if I had have braked I would have hit it in the side. If I hadn't braked, he'd have crashed into the side of me !

Catch 22. Only one way out. Turn the handle.

You know what sort of accel you get off bikes, so I cleared it.

Ok, the worst that can happen is 3 points + a fine, but I'd do it again.

NO signal on their part sort of clinches the deal as far as I can see.

I will let you know how it pans out.

Jason F

1,183 posts

286 months

Friday 23rd November 2001
quotequote all
At the risk of sounding Stupid why hasnt the car driver been done for Undue Care ?!?!?!?!?

As for the only option being to accelerate, once alongside a car that is intent on knocking you down your only choice is to move. I assume there was oncoming traffic.. So you save your own life. As anyone would.

apache

39,731 posts

286 months

Friday 23rd November 2001
quotequote all
HB,I think it sounds a fair argument, if you weren't on a crotch rocket you would probably have been involved in an accident. Authority doesn't acknowledge the fact that acceleration can be a good thing and therefor get you out of trouble....good luck and let us know how you get on

hertsbiker

Original Poster:

6,319 posts

273 months

Friday 23rd November 2001
quotequote all
thanks for the moral support.
The driver probably didn't even see me.
Plod was probably asleep. How much skill does it take to set up a Gatso & then pack it up again some hours later?

Infact, civilian scum (volunteers) now operate these vans in Essex, so maybe not a rozzer in the van.

I am sure that they are not looking in their mirrors 100% of the time they are on shift, so why should the driver get caught?

The only way the driver would get caught is if I had been knocked off the bike.

Huh !!!!! Speed kills? NO !! acceleration rules !