Done For Speeding

time after time i see the same thing posted on here.
that people will not admit that they do not HAVE to speed and that it was their choice to do so.
whether you agree with the speed limits in this country or not the fact remains that they are there and, should you break them through either choice or your lack of observational skills, there is a risk of being caught and subsequently fined or even banned.
if you need a license for your job then you should be even more careful.
all this "deserted road at 1am" rubbish is exactly that as you're not arguing about the safety factor, you're arguing over an absolute offence.
 
The_Dark_Side said:
time after time i see the same thing posted on here.
that people will not admit that they do not HAVE to speed and that it was their choice to do so.
whether you agree with the speed limits in this country or not the fact remains that they are there and, should you break them through either choice or your lack of observational skills, there is a risk of being caught and subsequently fined or even banned.
if you need a license for your job then you should be even more careful.
all this "deserted road at 1am" rubbish is exactly that as you're not arguing about the safety factor, you're arguing over an absolute offence.
Click to expand...

Depends, I argue that it should not be an absolute offence on a regular basis, but if I was caught, then I'd have to deal with it and move on, it would be my fault and my responsibility. I'd do everything I reasonably and legally could to minimise the effect it has, but I'd still be at fault.
 
Dolph said:
Depends, I argue that it should not be an absolute offence on a regular basis, but if I was caught, then I'd have to deal with it and move on, it would be my fault and my responsibility. I'd do everything I reasonably and legally could to minimise the effect it has, but I'd still be at fault.
Click to expand...
the thing is, you're citing a different argument there.
i could agree with you that it SHOULD not be, but at the moment it is.
you can take any law in this country and, if it's one that's known to the entire population, while you're free to break it if you choose to do so you cannot play all innocent if things go wrong and you're caught and punished for doing so.
 
The_Dark_Side said:
the article seems to forget to mention by what margin car ownership has increased over the same period.
statistically, if you have more vehicles on the road then you will also have more accidents for the same period.
Click to expand...

Well, except that car ownership has increased year on year for decades, and accidents were falling steadily until the change in focus on towards speed. The problem is only getting worse as time goes on, as skills are forgotten and as we're introducing an entire generation of drivers who think that safety is defined by a number.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
 
Last edited:
The_Dark_Side said:
the thing is, you're citing a different argument there.
i could agree with you that it SHOULD not be, but at the moment it is.
you can take any law in this country and, if it's one that's known to the entire population, while you're free to break it if you choose to do so you cannot play all innocent if things go wrong and you're caught and punished for doing so.
Click to expand...

Actually, there are a few arguments here.

There's the argument about whether the speeding laws are right.

Then there's the argument about whether you should roll over and accept a punishment, or try and mitigate it (legally).

Generally, the idea of working to mitigate a punishment is well established in UK law, so applying the same ideas to speeding seems perfectly valid to me.
 
Dolph said:
Actually, there are a few arguments here.
Click to expand...
i can only give my own views on the arguments which are as follows.
Dolph said:
There's the argument about whether the speeding laws are right.
Click to expand...
by right i'll assume you're talking about the levels they're currently set at.
the answer is definitely....some are some are not.
some limits could be raised with absolutely no reduction in driver safety or increase in accident rates on a given road.
some limits should be lowered IMHO.
Dolph said:
Then there's the argument about whether you should roll over and accept a punishment, or try and mitigate it (legally).
Click to expand...
well, if you have a legal defence then go for it.
it might not be morally right, but then since when has the legal system been about being right?
Dolph said:
Generally, the idea of working to mitigate a punishment is well established in UK law, so applying the same ideas to speeding seems perfectly valid to me.
Click to expand...
now this is where i have a partial problem.
if you have a legal avenue to persue then that's all very well, but to accompany it with the wounded soldier routine that really sticks in my throat.
by all means hold your hands up and say "hey, i did it but i've been advised that i may be able to escape conviction", but don't follow it up with trying to do the "but it was safe" etc.
 
djcj said:
Hmmmm, bit of an interesting update, I received my NIP today and it has the wrong car registration number on it. I then looked at the form the policeman handed me at the roadside and his handwriting is terrible. The last letter of my reg is a C but his looks like an L. So on my NIP the reg ends with an L. I know i should take my punishment like a man as i was caught fair and square. But wondering whether to say to a judge, no your honour.....i wasn't speeding in THAT car *looks all dumb and innnocent*
Click to expand...


You might want to ask on a more relevant forum like www.5ive-o.com which has a lot of members from the police and judiciary. Also theres a site http://www.pepipoo.com/Law_Theory_js.htm ,they are all about defences for speed fines.

Unless you were driving badly or in heavy traffic theres no reason to roll over
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom