Done For Speeding

[Bobbler]

It is. I dont even hesitate to undertake. If some fool is sitting in the outer lane going slower than I am, and I'm confident they're going to sit there regardless, zip I'm past on the inside.

I will only do it if I feel it is safe to do so, and if a policeman sees me do it, he will have to judge whether what I did constituted dangerous driving or not, as undertaking itself is not illegal.

True mate, dont get me wrong I do it frequently on the bike when you get the numbnuts round Bristols dual carriageway system. They have this odd mentality that because they are turning right in 2 miles that they need to be in the right lane for the entire length of the dual carriageway.
Its just that people and the plod don't look favourably on it, but its ok to sit there not making progress and preventing others from passing which is equally "in the wrong"

 

[roadie]

150% of the speed limit on average is a bit much.

 

[Muncher]

Do NOT use the defence that you need the car to commute or else you'll lose your job - the courts are liable will take the "well you should have thought of that beforehand" attitude.

Wrong!

I'd strongly recommend seeking legal advice on the best way to approach thi

Correct!


You have my sympathies, in the right car that speed is perfectly acceptable, especially at that time of the morning.

 

[Third Opinion]

they are at a "standstill" probably 4hours of a 24hour day. What about 10pm when theres 2 or 3 lorries on the road?

And no im not a Child killer

At no point did I suggest you were a child killer. We are talking motorways so the comment is totally irrelevant.

Don't you think the variable speed limits are complicated enough without changing them to suite different hours of the day. Plus you also need to factor in weather, thick fog and 50m visibility does not stop idiots driving at 80-90mph now. God only knows what speed they would be doing if the limit was raised to 100mph.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Just to add to the debate about safe to speed.
I personally agree with the argument that the driver is the only person who is really able to make a decision about the road conditions, the weather and the status of their car, thus what speed it is actually safe to drive down a road at.
So in theory, it could be argued that we can all completely ignore speed limits and drive at whatever speed is safe.

However, whilst 95% of the population are more than capable of making rational decisions about what is a safe speed, unfortunately there will always be a select few morons who will drive like idiots.

The problem is that if a large amount of the sensible drivers exceed the speed limit, you're basically advocating that the morons can too.
So for example, it might well be reasonable to argue that it's safe to drive at 100mph on a deserted motorway. Imagine then applying the same "make your own choice" to the moron who drives at 60mph outside a crowed junior school. How on earth can you seriously say "that's dangerous" when he can argue (and rightly so) that he's simply driving at a speed that he considers to be safe.

THAT is why we have speed limits. They are not there to allow arbitrary decision making on what speed is safe. They are there to hopefully protect the general public from the morons. By flaunting them, the general public are simply broadcasting to all the morons to please do the same.

 

[Dashik]

Wrong!




Correct!


You have my sympathies, in the right car that speed is perfectly acceptable, especially at that time of the morning.

Wrong!

Its not acceptable because its Illegal! Tell you what, I think its reasonable to steal all your money..........

 

[[TW]Fox]

Its not acceptable because its Illegal! Tell you what, I think its reasonable to steal all your money..........

If you can't see the difference between driving in excess of the posted speed limit and stealing money then it's a wonder you've got anywhere in society.

 

[Dashik]

If you can't see the difference between driving in excess of the posted speed limit and stealing money then it's a wonder you've got anywhere in society.

It was a flippant remarke intent on illustrating selective obediance with the law to suit an individual.....

 

[playworker]

Its not acceptable because its Illegal! Tell you what, I think its reasonable to steal all your money..........

LOLz, dude, people don't steal money because it's morally wrong to deprive someone else of something that belongs to them. Speeding is not morally wrong as long as it isn't irresponsible and dangerous hence it being deemed "acceptable".

Grow up FFS!

 

[Fr0dders]

It was a flippant remarke intent on illustrating selective obediance with the law to suit an individual.....

a largely pointless comment considering the laws governing our roads were drawn up years ago, based upon the cars that were being driven at the time

Since then technology has improved, and driving at 100 on an empty motorway is no more dangerous in a modern well maintained car than doing 70 on a busy motorway.

The laws regarding theft are based upon moral principles which havent changed.

Theres a big difference.

 

[Lopéz]

The usual points raised I see!

Okay, been there done that, got the t shirt and still wearing it.

Full story as I'm in the mood for typing!

I was caught by a mobile camera device from a range of just under 1km (awesome!) on a bridge between J34 and J35 of the M4. The conditions were bright but not glaring, it was a Sunday lunch time and traffic flow was medium. I was the fastest vehicle on the road (ie no cars had caught and passed me since I left Swindon)

When I saw the van I braked hard but the damage had been done - indeed, in my court summons the CPS gave me the picture evidence and you can see the car is down on it's nose under braking.

I completed my journey knowing I had been caught and awaited my fate. I received an NIP which I signed and returned. It was a "fair cop" and I felt that it would be wrong to try and avoid prosecution on a technicality although I'd have happily taken any reduction in punishment
The NIP stated I was doing 104mph on a motorway and did not offer me any form of fixed penalty.

After sending the NIP I was then summonsed to appear before Neath Magistrates to answer the charge of exceeding the speed limit on a motorway.

I did not seek legal advice, but I did post on here and read a lot of similar cases on Pepipoo. I returned my summons and means testing form along with the statement that I intended to plead Guilty.

On the morning of the appearance, I dressed smartly and had a shave, took my driving licence and my credit card and got my mother to drive me to court (if you are banned, it is done straight away so I needed someone to drive me back!) I also took with me a brief letter from my manager explaining that due to me living in a rural area, any form of ban would result in the company losing a promising member of staff.

In court it's all relatively informal - a chap acts as a "go between" for you and basically tells you what to do which is very comforting if you have never been in court before.
They read the officers statement, to which I pleaded guilty. I then had to confirm a few personal details and show them my driving license. Then I was told that the magistrates "Regularly consider a period of disqualification for speeds in excess of 100mph"
I was then asked if I had any explanation for my actions, or any other relevant information that may influence the magistrates in their sentencing.

I spoke clearly and as apologetically as I could without appearing smarmy, and explained that I had inadvertently built up speed whilst overtaking a long line of cars and that I had not noticed my road speed was so high. I explained that I live in a rural area high in unemployment and that losing my license would certainly mean losing my job in the short term - which was quite true. At this time I was not a homeowner, and had no dependents.

They asked me if I had any holiday time remaining at work (I can only assume they were considering a short ban at this point?) to which I replied "No" and the magistrates retired to consider the verdict.

Upon their return I was called on to stand, and the magistrates announced that "Due to your employment circumstances, and previously clean licence we have decided not to implement a driving ban. However, in view of your extremely high speed you will be ordered to pay a fine of £240 and £45 costs and receive 6 penalty points"

I thanked them, the go between guy asked me if I had a payment method with me and I replied that I did. So the usher showed me to a payment room where the money was taken over the phone using an automated service. They sent my licence to the DVLA and I received it back in a redecorated fashion a couple of weeks later

Hope this helps

 

[beast20vt]

am replying to the initial post as i cant be bothered to read every post as im sure most will be similar.

averaging above 100mph for that long a period of time,basically you deserve a ban but you may be lucky and get away with it because of your job.atleast in your post you havnt whinged about being unfairly treated you have been mature and admitted that you have broken the law and are prepared to take the consequences.good look either way.i used to drive really fast on the motorway,above twice the limit but ive always accepted that if i got caught i would be looking at my car for a few years rather than driving it.

read on of the last posts about 100mph being perfectly acceptable in the right car-thats total rubbish,100mph isnt acceptable anywhere regardless of the car,its still breaking the speed limit by a great deal.i used to have a car capable of well over 150mph safely but doing on the public road isnt acceptable is it?

in general on the motorway if you stick to below 85mph you arent gonna get too much bother from the police even though you are breaking the limit,there isnt really any reason to do above this speed unless you havnt allowed enough time for your journey

 

[adapt]

This is a interesting post. I do feel for the chap as personally I find someone steady at 90-100ish when its empty (late at night, early morning) it perfectly acceptable and thats someone who rarely travels at that speed no longer due to traveling on the M1 every day 80miles to work and back and seeing what can happen. I find that more accidents are caused when someone is sitting at 80 in the middle lane. When im in the left hand lane and I can see the road empty in the same lane and have to cross three lanes to overtake the plonker to cross three lanes again to get back where I was, this is when accidents start to happen as you get worked up and can take a chance.

I do think thou that when you are in the mindset of accepting 100mph on the motorway is acceptable it is best to consider that others do not agree. I had a guy only yesterday behind me (it must have been a hard day at the office!) flashing me yards before he got to me to move out his way as he was travelling 100++ and I was overtaking a lorry in the middle lane. That guy would sooner continue to travel 100+ and get home a few mins early, stressed and risking a accident than travelling 70/80 and being chilled, relaxed and ontime or a couple of mins later.

But most of you are right, if you are caught you take it on the chin and hope for the best and accept it could happen to most of us.

I wish you the best and hope your lucky but it will be down to luck no matter what plea you give in court.

 

[beast20vt]

pmsl at you you complaining of having to cross 3 lanes to overtake a plonker doing 80mph.sounds like he's being passed by a bigger plonker!

 

[Fr0dders]

read on of the last posts about 100mph being perfectly acceptable in the right car-thats total rubbish,100mph isnt acceptable anywhere regardless of the car,its still breaking the speed limit by a great deal.

ok so its not legally acceptable, that much is obvious

but how is driving at 100 on an empty motorway more dangerous than 70 ? the speed itself doesnt make your more likely to crash. And with nobody else on the road to influence you into having a crash, the only likely cause for an accident at 100mph is yourself.

And if your being neglegant and crashing into central reservations or leaving the carriageway, doesnt matter if your doing 70 or 100, your still in big trouble.

 

[adapt]

pmsl at you you complaining of having to cross 3 lanes to overtake a plonker doing 80mph.sounds like he's ebing passed by a bigger plonker!

Why, if the road is empty and you are finding yourself in a position that your by the side of someone who clearly is able to get into the correct lane why does that make me the plonker. Im not saying I was traveling at 100+ if you read the rest of my post. I could be doing 82 and be in the position to overtake.

 

[Replicant]

Well, I'm in exactly the same boat. Got caught doing 116 average on my bike a while back.

The police were fine about it. There wasn't much traffic around and it was a 4 lane section of motorway. Its usually a very fast bit of road, so I can see why the police patrol it. They must stop loads of people.

I have received my court appearance date now, been told I must attend. I'm pleading guilty and I dont plan to make any arguments or any form of defence. I'll take whatever punishment they give on the chin and carry on with my life.

I know its a stupid question but i just wanna be sure:

Will speeding on a bike also mean you are bannedd from driving a car too, since a bike is simply a category on your overall licence isn't it

 

[Replicant]

My sister had a minor crash in Aberdeen which was marginally her fault. She got 5 points and £150 for careless driving. This was at 20mph.

I know it's not a comparison as the crime is different but Scotland seem harsh compared to you guys in England.

104mph lowest average means you deserve to lose your license to be honest.

Errr, so what if she was going much slower, she actually crashed, maybe her car was in bad condition, tyres etc, perhaps she injured someone or it was a minor miricle that omeone wsn't seriously injured or killed,even 20mph can do all sorts of damage, i'm not going to conclude that scottish laws are harsher from reading that, at least tell us the story behind it.

 

[Fr0dders]

My sister had a minor crash in Aberdeen which was marginally her fault. She got 5 points and £150 for careless driving. This was at 20mph.

I know it's not a comparison as the crime is different but Scotland seem harsh compared to you guys in England.

104mph lowest average means you deserve to lose your license to be honest.

sorry but i dont believe this the whole extent of the story

in what way was she "marginally" to blame ? this can make all the difference between it being just another accident, and an incident of driving without due care and attention .. (for which 5 points and £150 fine sounds about right)

the offence of driving without due care and attention exists in england as well as scotland, so its no "harsher" than here.

 

[Vertigo]

Wrong!

Says who? The aforementioned employee at our place was advised by a solicitor that the "but I'll lose my job" defence was wearing very thin with a lot of courts and she'd be very ill-advised to use it.

To me, this sounds like a perfectly reasonable attitude for the courts to take and I've no doubt that what the solicitor said was true. Why should someone who relies more on their car for work purposes than I do be less likely to receive a ban for the same offence? That's not justice, it's prejudice.

What's next? "I know I glassed him outside the pub your honour but if you send me down for a stretch I'll lose my job"