Notice of intended prosecution.

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere - doesn't have to be AD related.
crr003
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:32 pm

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby crr003 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:32 pm

martine wrote:I say this as someone who last week may have been zapped by a speed camera last week (nothing's arrived in the post...yet... :oops: ). My second reaction after "Oh deary me, damn and blast" (may have been a shorter exclamation!) was to understand why I didn't notice and react to the signs and camera until pretty close.

Do you get a discount? :twisted:

Couple of years ago I waited behind a slow moving farm vehicle. Came over the brow of a hill, DWL ended, overtook. Being a nice chap I tried to get past in a timely fashion, to enable others behind me to overtake. Hidden in a field entrance behind a tree was a safety camera van. After the usual process of hate/fear/acceptance (or is that for divorce?) I figured I'd be in SAC territory so "bring it on, if you've got nothing better to do".
Nothing heard - I think they'd have aimed their poxy camera on the lane I wasn't in anyway, to catch speed demons.
Quite looking forward to a SAC - it's on my bucket list.

User avatar
angus
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: Colchester - Oldest Town, oldest roads

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby angus » Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:11 pm

I wonder if this is an (un)intended consequence of camera vans: a few days ago we were driving from Carlisle to Dumfries in the early evening. We were soon receiving flashes from oncoming traffic and sure enough, there was a van in a layby. However, once past, most of the traffic bunched up behind lorries doing 40-45 and were unwilling to overtake, despite long straights with no oncoming traffic and good visability.

Still, overtaking one group of more than 8 vehicles and 2 groups of 4 didn't present any problems...

User avatar
jont-
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:12 am
Location: Flatlands

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby jont- » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:51 am

Nah, I think that's just modern laziness of most drivers and the concept of overtaking (not on a multi-lane road) is an anathema. I see it on roads around here where drivers will sit behind a fast-track tractor doing 40mph despite the plethora of suitable overtaking opportunities. And then you've got to allow for the drivers that think NSL is 50 so they think they don't have headroom to overtake legally. Personally I'd like to see a crackdown on these sorts of drivers - at the absolute minimum people should be leaving return gaps. But better still, if you're not in a hurry, go and get a bus (or train) and leave the roads quieter for those of us that actually want to get somewhere....

mainbeam
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:32 am

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby mainbeam » Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:39 pm

I can see the benefit of drivers facing up to their errors but I am not convinced that the Police ought not to do the same. It is they, after all, who issued the NIP incorrectly which apparently doesn't comply with the mandatory requirement of S1 RTOA 1988.

Failing to comply with a speed limit is a technical offence in itself, merely complemented by a technical defence.

hir
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby hir » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:10 pm

waremark wrote:... (Says a conscientious driver who is a graduate of a speed awareness course ).


Yes, but Mark, I think you must have wanted to be caught. I have no doubt in my mind that you saw the camera van and then deliberately drove past at 10% + 3mph so that you could tick-off yet another bucket-list life-experience. :lol:

martine
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:26 am

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby martine » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:51 pm

hir wrote:[...then deliberately drove past at 10% + 3mph so that you could tick-off yet another bucket-list life-experience. :lol:

<nerdy voice: on> the threshold for prosecution is 10% + 2mph or above.
Martin - Bristol IAM: IMI National Observer and Group Secretary, DSA: ADI, Fleet, RoSPA (Dip)

hir
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Notice of intended prosecution.

Postby hir » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:50 pm

martine wrote:
hir wrote:[...then deliberately drove past at 10% + 3mph so that you could tick-off yet another bucket-list life-experience. :lol:

<nerdy voice: on> the threshold for prosecution is 10% + 2mph or above.


Yes I know, but some police authorities will only prosecute above 10%+2mph, that's why I deliberately wrote 10%+3mph. When I wrote that, I was thinking that Mark would have wished to leave no doubt in the mind of the camera operator, no scope for being "let-off" the offence. That's why I wrote...

"Yes, but Mark, I think you must have wanted to be caught. I have no doubt in my mind that you saw the camera van and then deliberately drove past at 10% + 3mph so that you could tick-off yet another bucket-list life-experience. :lol:"

Also, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm sure that Mark would not have driven at a speed above 10%+3mph. ;)


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: martine and 4 guests