Can avoiding an accident be a defence to a scamera?
Discussion
Yesterday, my son was riding his 600 Yamaha on unfamiliar roads. He had sat-nav with scamera warning on.
He was in the near side lane of an A-road duel carriageway with a 50 mph limit.
Ahead was a scamera and just beyond that an exit slip. He made sure he was just below the limit. He was staying on the A-road.
A car coming down the outside lane, faster than my son and wanting to take the exit. Suddenly the car driver saw the scamera at the last moment. He braked and cut into my sons lane.
My son realised the N/S/F of the car was going to hit his bike about near the rear right footrest.
His options were:
Hold his course and speed and be hit as above.
Brake and be hit side of car to side of bike.
Swerve left, off the road into a high kerbstone.
Accelerate out of danger and avoid the accident.
He chose to accelerate hard and survive.
The scamera of course flashed him. He thinks he had gained about 20 mph.
Now he has been riding a few years, but only passed his car test recently. Therefore he's subject to the 6 points ban rules for two years. Fortunately his license is clean, but it puts him on the brink of disqualification.
Assuming a NIP arrives, how should he deal with the situation?
He was in the near side lane of an A-road duel carriageway with a 50 mph limit.
Ahead was a scamera and just beyond that an exit slip. He made sure he was just below the limit. He was staying on the A-road.
A car coming down the outside lane, faster than my son and wanting to take the exit. Suddenly the car driver saw the scamera at the last moment. He braked and cut into my sons lane.
My son realised the N/S/F of the car was going to hit his bike about near the rear right footrest.
His options were:
Hold his course and speed and be hit as above.
Brake and be hit side of car to side of bike.
Swerve left, off the road into a high kerbstone.
Accelerate out of danger and avoid the accident.
He chose to accelerate hard and survive.
The scamera of course flashed him. He thinks he had gained about 20 mph.
Now he has been riding a few years, but only passed his car test recently. Therefore he's subject to the 6 points ban rules for two years. Fortunately his license is clean, but it puts him on the brink of disqualification.
Assuming a NIP arrives, how should he deal with the situation?
Uncle Fester said:
Now he has been riding a few years, but only passed his car test recently. Therefore he's subject to the 6 points ban rules for two years. Fortunately his license is clean, but it puts him on the brink of disqualification.
When did he obtain his full motorcycle licence ?Note that if he was subject to the 'new driver' rules, then his licence would be revoked if he amassed 6 points or more during his probationary period (2 years from the date he first became qualified).
Uncle Fester said:
Assuming a NIP arrives, how should he deal with the situation?
Firstly, I'd politely request photos and check whether the car appears in either of the snaps.Edited by SS2. on Thursday 10th January 11:06
Unfortunately with the time he spent on L plates for 50cc and 125cc he's still got some months to go before his full licence is two years old.
It was evening and dark. All he got a look at was the headlights and a glimpse with his peripheral vision. The car was behind or along side briefly. He shot forward and the car cut behind him and up the slip road. As he had stayed on the duel carriageway, he never got a good look. He can't even tell me what colour it was.
Unless the car appears in the scamera photo, there is no proof it even existed. There is smaller chance of it's number plate being visible. And no chance a still photo is going to show what happened behind the scamera. Even if the car were traced, what chance is there of the driver admitting in Court that he caused the whole thing by speeding and dangerous driving?
It's a perfect example of why scamera's are dangerous and unjust. Had all this been witnessed by a real Police Officer, I have little doubt it wouldn't be my son, but the car driver who would be dealt with.
Had the scamera not been there, the car driver wouldn't have had to change his plan and slam his brakes on. He could have pulled in front of my son, into the slip road and decelerated.
Of course a better driver wouldn't have got into that position in the first place. He would have been in the near side lane with the correct speed, having seen the scamera.
I'm grateful my son is unharmed. The combination of putting scamera's among poor drivers could have proved lethal. It needs real Police, not scamera's to do the job of sorting out poor drivers.
I fear my son is going to come out of this with about as much justice as a Policeman with a politicians pay rise promise.
It was evening and dark. All he got a look at was the headlights and a glimpse with his peripheral vision. The car was behind or along side briefly. He shot forward and the car cut behind him and up the slip road. As he had stayed on the duel carriageway, he never got a good look. He can't even tell me what colour it was.
Unless the car appears in the scamera photo, there is no proof it even existed. There is smaller chance of it's number plate being visible. And no chance a still photo is going to show what happened behind the scamera. Even if the car were traced, what chance is there of the driver admitting in Court that he caused the whole thing by speeding and dangerous driving?
It's a perfect example of why scamera's are dangerous and unjust. Had all this been witnessed by a real Police Officer, I have little doubt it wouldn't be my son, but the car driver who would be dealt with.
Had the scamera not been there, the car driver wouldn't have had to change his plan and slam his brakes on. He could have pulled in front of my son, into the slip road and decelerated.
Of course a better driver wouldn't have got into that position in the first place. He would have been in the near side lane with the correct speed, having seen the scamera.
I'm grateful my son is unharmed. The combination of putting scamera's among poor drivers could have proved lethal. It needs real Police, not scamera's to do the job of sorting out poor drivers.
I fear my son is going to come out of this with about as much justice as a Policeman with a politicians pay rise promise.
On the bright side: he is uninjured, whereas without his (on the face of it) sensible reactions he could have been killed.
Also - let's wait and see if a NIP arrives. The scamera may have been empty or out of film. I presume it was a rear-facing camera.
And - 70 in a 50 on a scamera is almost certainly a fixed penalty 3-pointer, so not the end of the world, though as you say it does only give him one more 'life'.
And now... the 14 day wait. Good luck!
Also - let's wait and see if a NIP arrives. The scamera may have been empty or out of film. I presume it was a rear-facing camera.
And - 70 in a 50 on a scamera is almost certainly a fixed penalty 3-pointer, so not the end of the world, though as you say it does only give him one more 'life'.
And now... the 14 day wait. Good luck!
I don't think all is lost here.
If you can show that you are in immediate physical danger then this can be used in mitigation.
About ten years ago a certain Mr Beckham was speeding but his lawyer successfully argued that he was being 'chased' by the paps and though they were going to cause an accident.
I don't know if it was a not guilty verdict or an unconditional discharge, or a conviction with zero points but it can happen.
Remember as well, not all of the scameras are loaded with film. I was flashed a good ten years ago (the only time) and heard nothing.
If you can show that you are in immediate physical danger then this can be used in mitigation.
About ten years ago a certain Mr Beckham was speeding but his lawyer successfully argued that he was being 'chased' by the paps and though they were going to cause an accident.
I don't know if it was a not guilty verdict or an unconditional discharge, or a conviction with zero points but it can happen.
Remember as well, not all of the scameras are loaded with film. I was flashed a good ten years ago (the only time) and heard nothing.
JustinP1 said:
I don't think all is lost here.
If you can show that you are in immediate physical danger then this can be used in mitigation.
About ten years ago a certain Mr Beckham was speeding but his lawyer successfully argued that he was being 'chased' by the paps and though they were going to cause an accident.
I don't know if it was a not guilty verdict or an unconditional discharge, or a conviction with zero points but it can happen.
Remember as well, not all of the scameras are loaded with film. I was flashed a good ten years ago (the only time) and heard nothing.
The caseIf you can show that you are in immediate physical danger then this can be used in mitigation.
About ten years ago a certain Mr Beckham was speeding but his lawyer successfully argued that he was being 'chased' by the paps and though they were going to cause an accident.
I don't know if it was a not guilty verdict or an unconditional discharge, or a conviction with zero points but it can happen.
Remember as well, not all of the scameras are loaded with film. I was flashed a good ten years ago (the only time) and heard nothing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/557001.stm
The win
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/567909.stm
But for us common peasants I think the price will be a bit out of our reach for such a lawyer, however having said that there are other good specialist lawyers who will take this case I'm sure if you do appeal.
I don't think Beck's had pictures of the paparazzi or any proof that they actually existed either, but then again, the rich and famous always seem to get away with murder easily.
Devils advocate for a second.
Are you sure your son is telling the truth? The circumstances don't quite ring true to me, as a bike rider.
What he is saying is that in the dark he was aware of a particular set of lights coming behind him very quickly, then slowing down and swerving into him? Do you not think the driver would have seen him as he approached, given the circumstances of the incident?
Also, if he was cruising along at 50, unless he was cruising in 3rd (unlikely) then his instantaneous acceleration would be pretty slow - too slow to evade a swerving car by reacting to a last second potential threat by twisting the throttle.
I know when I had "incidents" when I was younger there was always a *cough* 3rd party involved.
Just a thought
Are you sure your son is telling the truth? The circumstances don't quite ring true to me, as a bike rider.
What he is saying is that in the dark he was aware of a particular set of lights coming behind him very quickly, then slowing down and swerving into him? Do you not think the driver would have seen him as he approached, given the circumstances of the incident?
Also, if he was cruising along at 50, unless he was cruising in 3rd (unlikely) then his instantaneous acceleration would be pretty slow - too slow to evade a swerving car by reacting to a last second potential threat by twisting the throttle.
I know when I had "incidents" when I was younger there was always a *cough* 3rd party involved.
Just a thought
hornetrider said:
Devils advocate for a second.
Are you sure your son is telling the truth? The circumstances don't quite ring true to me, as a bike rider.
What he is saying is that in the dark he was aware of a particular set of lights coming behind him very quickly, then slowing down and swerving into him? Do you not think the driver would have seen him as he approached, given the circumstances of the incident?
Also, if he was cruising along at 50, unless he was cruising in 3rd (unlikely) then his instantaneous acceleration would be pretty slow - too slow to evade a swerving car by reacting to a last second potential threat by twisting the throttle.
I know when I had "incidents" when I was younger there was always a *cough* 3rd party involved.
Just a thought
I guess it depends on your riding style. For sure many bikers will drop a cog or two when slowing down to aproach a scamera, ready to wind it back up to speed once past. If so he would have had a lot of grunt available.Are you sure your son is telling the truth? The circumstances don't quite ring true to me, as a bike rider.
What he is saying is that in the dark he was aware of a particular set of lights coming behind him very quickly, then slowing down and swerving into him? Do you not think the driver would have seen him as he approached, given the circumstances of the incident?
Also, if he was cruising along at 50, unless he was cruising in 3rd (unlikely) then his instantaneous acceleration would be pretty slow - too slow to evade a swerving car by reacting to a last second potential threat by twisting the throttle.
I know when I had "incidents" when I was younger there was always a *cough* 3rd party involved.
Just a thought
s2art said:
I guess it depends on your riding style. For sure many bikers will drop a cog or two when slowing down to aproach a scamera, ready to wind it back up to speed once past. If so he would have had a lot of grunt available.
Really? Why not just open the throttle a bit in top? This seems to be clutching at straws...Uncle Fester said:
It's a perfect example of why scamera's are dangerous and unjust. Had all this been witnessed by a real Police Officer, I have little doubt it wouldn't be my son, but the car driver who would be dealt with.
I dissagree, catching a speeder is far better for stats than a bloke who is dangerous as speeding is a crime of the devil!!matt
Uncle Fester said:
Yesterday, my son was riding his 600 Yamaha on unfamiliar roads. He had sat-nav with scamera warning on.
He was in the near side lane of an A-road duel carriageway with a 50 mph limit.
Ahead was a scamera and just beyond that an exit slip. He made sure he was just below the limit. He was staying on the A-road.
A car coming down the outside lane, faster than my son and wanting to take the exit. Suddenly the car driver saw the scamera at the last moment. He braked and cut into my sons lane.
My son realised the N/S/F of the car was going to hit his bike about near the rear right footrest.
His options were:
Hold his course and speed and be hit as above.
Brake and be hit side of car to side of bike.
Swerve left, off the road into a high kerbstone.
Accelerate out of danger and avoid the accident.
He chose to accelerate hard and survive.
The scamera of course flashed him. He thinks he had gained about 20 mph.
Now he has been riding a few years, but only passed his car test recently. Therefore he's subject to the 6 points ban rules for two years. Fortunately his license is clean, but it puts him on the brink of disqualification.
Assuming a NIP arrives, how should he deal with the situation?
Go to court and tell his story. And the bench will go 'Really? Pull the other one, sonny - there's no way you saw a car swerve from Lane 2 to Lane 1 in your mirrors and in that split second you nailed it, gained 20mph and got flashed.'He was in the near side lane of an A-road duel carriageway with a 50 mph limit.
Ahead was a scamera and just beyond that an exit slip. He made sure he was just below the limit. He was staying on the A-road.
A car coming down the outside lane, faster than my son and wanting to take the exit. Suddenly the car driver saw the scamera at the last moment. He braked and cut into my sons lane.
My son realised the N/S/F of the car was going to hit his bike about near the rear right footrest.
His options were:
Hold his course and speed and be hit as above.
Brake and be hit side of car to side of bike.
Swerve left, off the road into a high kerbstone.
Accelerate out of danger and avoid the accident.
He chose to accelerate hard and survive.
The scamera of course flashed him. He thinks he had gained about 20 mph.
Now he has been riding a few years, but only passed his car test recently. Therefore he's subject to the 6 points ban rules for two years. Fortunately his license is clean, but it puts him on the brink of disqualification.
Assuming a NIP arrives, how should he deal with the situation?
If he's convincing, he may well be able to mitigate, but the whole story just sounds a bit far fetched - "I wuz riding along riding my own business, and just as I went past the speed camera, I was forced to accelerate to high speed to avoid someone else driving like a t
t'. Sorry. :-(
To have caught your son, the camera would have had to have photographed the rear of his bike, if he is telling the truth, the offending car should also be in shot.
however, and i have to say its just my feeling based on nothing, i think he may be telling a porky pie.
with the limited experience he has of a bike and more so of the road, id say he was unlikely to have had so much thought and time to think about options, and would have done the natural option, and grabbed a fist full of brake. i also think a court would be of the same opinion.
however, and i have to say its just my feeling based on nothing, i think he may be telling a porky pie.
with the limited experience he has of a bike and more so of the road, id say he was unlikely to have had so much thought and time to think about options, and would have done the natural option, and grabbed a fist full of brake. i also think a court would be of the same opinion.
worst ive been caught speeding, how can i blag my way out of it thread ever!!i was in the car once (missus driving) when we where approaching a junction and a kid was run over in the opposite lane of a dual carriageway, he was thrown into the air like a rag doll at the crossing (the red man was clearly showing dont try to cross the road) as this happend, the lights in front of us turned to red and the traffic light camera flashed us as we crossed the line coming to a stop.
not sure what happend, if you could see a leg in the air on the pic or somthing but we didnt get anything through the post for it and it was certainly us the camera flashed at.
that was a few years ago though.
not sure what happend, if you could see a leg in the air on the pic or somthing but we didnt get anything through the post for it and it was certainly us the camera flashed at.
that was a few years ago though.
hornetrider said:
Devils advocate for a second.
Are you sure your son is telling the truth? The circumstances don't quite ring true to me, as a bike rider.
What he is saying is that in the dark he was aware of a particular set of lights coming behind him very quickly, then slowing down and swerving into him? Do you not think the driver would have seen him as he approached, given the circumstances of the incident?
Also, if he was cruising along at 50, unless he was cruising in 3rd (unlikely) then his instantaneous acceleration would be pretty slow - too slow to evade a swerving car by reacting to a last second potential threat by twisting the throttle.
I know when I had "incidents" when I was younger there was always a *cough* 3rd party involved.
Just a thought
This pains me to say as his father, but he lacks the guile to come up with that story. He's a crape lier and has learning difficulties. The 20mph is literally what he said, but is probably an over estimate, but he believes it.Are you sure your son is telling the truth? The circumstances don't quite ring true to me, as a bike rider.
What he is saying is that in the dark he was aware of a particular set of lights coming behind him very quickly, then slowing down and swerving into him? Do you not think the driver would have seen him as he approached, given the circumstances of the incident?
Also, if he was cruising along at 50, unless he was cruising in 3rd (unlikely) then his instantaneous acceleration would be pretty slow - too slow to evade a swerving car by reacting to a last second potential threat by twisting the throttle.
I know when I had "incidents" when I was younger there was always a *cough* 3rd party involved.
Just a thought
I have gone over it with him and am getting what he believes to be the truth.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff