Anyone *actually* loopholed themselves out of a speeding ticket?
- Thread starter Luke
- Start date
Durzel said:
In a way, yes. But...it gets rather complicated as there will be an actual photo of her driving in most circumstances.
There is a way to wiggle out by the looks of things, but it will take a fair bit of reading up of how to go about it, and the use of representation in court rather than attending yourself as to avoid the identification from the photo when it comes to the case.
Very true, but you would have wasted a lot of time and leave yourself open to a harsher penalty and court costs if you lose. Which you will, if the photo is usable to identify you. Its a risk you take i guess, remember that the CPS are not required to send you photographic evidence until the court date.emailiscrap said:
Hard to know where to go with it. A couple of people seem to have been able to wangle it by using legal representation for the court attendance, which obviously renders the photograph useless. But thats quite some expense.
- Joined
- 3 May 2004
- Posts
- 17,711
- Location
- Kapitalist Republik of Surrey
Dad and brother got away with a number of things when the plates on the car got stolen. Obviously can't go into details but it was never them, it was the car with the cloned plates every time. Nothing the police could do about it as they can't prove otherwise.
Dolph said:
They mainly teach you to be more observant which definately helps with avoiding being caught by speed cameras. I'd agree that the speed limit sign doesn't tell you the exact speed that it's safe to drive at, just the maximum you're allowed to drive at. The actual safe speed could be slower or faster.
I think I may have got away with one. I got a letter in May sent non-recorded first class that said I had been caught doing 35mph in a mobile trap in Slough. I didn't do anything about it and I've heard nothing since.
Am I in the clear by now?
Am I in the clear by now?
Gribs said:
They'll also teach you that sudden changes in speed are bad... wait, isn't that what cameras force people to do if they are travelling at the safe speed for the conditions?
Perhaps if speed limits were representative this wouldn't happen... But that won't happen either while there is money to be made by peddling crappy data and causing more lost lives...
Dolph said:
If they're travelling at a safe speed below the legal limit they've no need to brake. If they decide to driver faster then if they're a safe driver they should slow down in good time as they would for any hazard.
Dolph said:
Most speed limits are reasonably fair for average drivers in reasonable conditions. Though of course some are to low and some to high. Moneys only made becasue people decide to drive faster than the limit and don't pay enough attention not to get caught.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 3,312
Any of you anti speeding people's coments are not what the OP is asking for, start your own thread for that if you must, then we can all avoid it like the plague! the op is asking for advice on pace and is tired of getting bent over for doing nothing unsafe, much like most of us. A clean licence is more luck than anything else these days!
The news at the mo is, this pace thing seems to work, and I'm going to give it a go I think! My cousin has no choice as we got done by the same camera, that was my first 3, but he already has 10 points so might as well give it a go.
I'll let you know how we go on!
Surely if people have been to court on S172 and got off that sets a pressadent so there is no point in them taking you to court??
The news at the mo is, this pace thing seems to work, and I'm going to give it a go I think! My cousin has no choice as we got done by the same camera, that was my first 3, but he already has 10 points so might as well give it a go.
I'll let you know how we go on!
Surely if people have been to court on S172 and got off that sets a pressadent so there is no point in them taking you to court??
Gribs said:
But wouldn't it be better to not place artificial hazards in the way in the first place? Especially as they don't actually make the roads safer, and indeed have been responsible for a dramatic slowdown in road improvements, no change in the accident rate etc etc...
People shouldn't have to pay attention to avoid unnecessary artifical hazards designed to make money. Paying attention to genuine hazards is one thing, having to worry about additional unneccessary ones is something else entirely.
. Heres hoping.Dolph said:
I'd rather not have additional hazards but I firmly believe that they generally catch unsafe drivers. Part of the problem is that they don't remove these unsafe drivers from the roadt. Imo general road safety would improve if there were less cars on the road. A good way to do this would be through increased penalties for being caught by speed cameras or just a reduction in the number of penalty points allowed to 6 and madatory bans of at least a month if you get more. There should be no chance of escaping a ban just because you "need" a car. If you needed it that much you'd be more careful about the posibility of losing your license. I can accpet that being caught once could just be unlucky but twice is just poor driving.
I should point out that I'm not anti speeding and regulary speed myself. It's just that from all my family and friends, most of who speed, only the poor drivers have actualy been caught by speed cameras.
Gribs said:
Believe what you like, but you'd be fundamentally, totally wrong, and that's according to the government's own evidence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5387568.stm
http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=15173
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2380204,00.html
Along with some trend information over a longer period
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=15192
For all your 'belief', there is absolutely no statistical evidence to support it (unless you try and count the long discredited government statistics they bandied about a few years ago).