Just wondering, under what grounds would you appeal?

Being within 10% +2 and not effecting anybody

Being within 10% +2 and not effecting anybody

I'd wish you well with that (should it happen), but I doubt a judge would accept that.

AFAIK you'd be charged with an SP30 which is exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road, not exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public but within 10% +2. It's like saying I want to appeal a manslaughter charge but the guy was a child molester and the world is better without him, would still be found guilty.

Magistrates can take that into consideration and convict you with 3 points and a fine and you can pay prosecution fees, as if it goes to court the minimum penalty they can give you is that.

Which IMO is a waste of time

Edited 22 February, 201511 yr by Sathit

I'd wish you well with that (should it happen), but I doubt a judge would accept that.

As said, I doubt a ticket would come through in the first place. Hypothetical situations aside I wouldn't be pushing my luck like that anyway,I'm simply making the point as I and others have already said that a zero tolerance approach to speeding and not allowing the 10% for discretion, circumstances, inaccuracies simply doesn't work in all instances. 79 on an empty motorway simply being an example of that. And yes IF it should happen to me, which it won't, I will try my luck with an appeal and what would be wrong with that? I'd fully accept the consequences should the appeal not be successful but in those circumstances I wouldn't see the harm in trying.

AFAIK you'd be charged with an SP30 which is exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road, not exceeding the statutory speed limit on a public but within 10% +2. It's like saying I want to appeal a manslaughter charge but the guy was a child molester and the world is better without him, would still be found guilty.

Magistrates can take that into consideration and convict you with 3 points and a fine and you can pay prosecution fees, as if it goes to court the minimum penalty they can give you is that.

Which IMO is a waste of time

Can I ask, of your 2 speeding charges why was one thrown out of court?

At the end of the day I feel everything that can be said about this has been said, opinions will differ and we can talk hypotheticals until the cows come home. There is no simple answer and I don't think we'll find one here.

Being within 10% +2 and not effecting anybody

"Not effecting anybody" would be a non-starter as a defence, but amusing to think you might try

"Not effecting anybody" would be a non-starter as a defence, but amusing to think you might try

Nearly as amusing as the thought that everybody does and should do the exact speed limit ALL the time, and not even be allowed to be 0.5 over in any circumstance. I'm not advocating excessive speed for the conditions by any means, just saying that nobody is perfect and anybody would have a right to feel agrieved by getting prosecuted within speed limit + 10% +2 on an empty motorway. Yes it's over the limit but punishment of that would be harsh I feel.

For the benefit of the op.........

 

The Peninsula SCP is generally more lenient than many, though this may not apply in roadworks.  I would be interested to know where this was.  Generally the only regular spot on a dual carriageway in Cornwall is at Tregadillet, just approaching Launceston on the eastbound.  There are a number of locations on the A30 which some people believe to be dual carriageways but are not (Marazanvose, Roseworthy Dip, Temple, etc) where they are quite active.

 

I am assuming it was not in roadworks, if so the tendency is to be pretty strict about it.

 

Just as an aside, if a NIP does come through do not be surprised if your company charges you a clerical fee for processing it - many organisations do these days.

 

Given the figures you have quoted I would have thought it was unlikely that you will hear anything.  If you had backed off well before reaching the van they are quite likely to regard that as 'job done', even if they had picked you up earlier.  If your previous speed had been seriously higher that could be different though.  In the event that you do hear something you would almost certainly be offered the course option, it is generally much cheaper to take the invitation.  Going to court tends to be an expensive option.  (The biscuits are better at the Holiday Inn Express than at Westpoint, by the way).

The two charges were:

40 in a 20

and 70 in a 40

 

both at 4am

 

70 in 40 was dropped as I pointed out to the prosecutor the visibility and lack of signage

 

Also managed to agree a deal with the prosecutor to drop the prosecution speed from 40 to 33 or 35, forgot, in exchange for a guilty plea, all in all, saved me from having getting 6 points and having to retake my test, due to being in the 2 year 'probation period'. Ended up with 4 points and a £60 fine with two offciers attending court a total of 3 times for the 3 hearings, one for plea, one postponed due to late running of previous one, and the final one which went ahead, bet the coppers wished they just gave me an FPN since all they got out of it was an extra point on my license and wasted around 10 hours of their time each + however long they took gathering evidence i requested for each

Nearly as amusing as the thought that everybody does and should do the exact speed limit ALL the time, and not even be allowed to be 0.5 over in any circumstance. 

 

Well isn't it meant to be everybody should do the exact speed limit or under ALL the time?, also I'm all for, do the crime, do the time.

The two charges were:

40 in a 20

and 70 in a 40

 

both at 4am

 

70 in 40 was dropped as I pointed out to the prosecutor the visibility and lack of signage

 

Also managed to agree a deal with the prosecutor to drop the prosecution speed from 40 to 33 or 35, forgot, in exchange for a guilty plea, all in all, saved me from having getting 6 points and having to retake my test, due to being in the 2 year 'probation period'. Ended up with 4 points and a £60 fine with two offciers attending court a total of 3 times for the 3 hearings, one for plea, one postponed due to late running of previous one, and the final one which went ahead, bet the coppers wished they just gave me an FPN since all they got out of it was an extra point on my license and wasted around 10 hours of their time each + however long they took gathering evidence i requested for each

So it was worth the appeal then? Seems the 70 in a 40 wasn't a black and white situation? Pretty sure you're much more likely to get a ticket issued for 40 in a 20 than for doing 79 on an empty motorway. Anyway this seems to have reformed your character given that in your previous posts you inferred that you support zero tolerance? If zero tolerance was the case then you wouldn't be driving for a long time after those offences I dare say. Do you see my point now?

So it was worth the appeal then? Seems the 70 in a 40 wasn't a black and white situation? Pretty sure you're much more likely to get a ticket issued for 40 in a 20 than for doing 79 on an empty motorway. Anyway this seems to have reformed your character given that in your previous posts you inferred that you support zero tolerance? If zero tolerance was the case then you wouldn't be driving for a long time after those offences I dare say. Do you see my point now?

 

Actually non-zero tolerence has nothing to do me keeping my license, it's based more on the technicalities of the situation, the road that was 40 was actually a 60 beforehand, and tbh the 70 is stupid anyways, I was doing 60 at the time, they just wanted a sure conviction and I didn't bother to argue on the speed alleged and just went for the fact that the country road didn't have clear signs.

 

After those offences I haven't been caught for speeding, normally I keep within limits, however when I do speed, if I am caught over, I would expect them to go through the proper processes. If I was on 9 points, got caught speeding, should've lost my license, got let of, killed someone a week later, I don't think that would be right and would never happened if the copper took a zero tolerence approach. 

 

Thats playing devils advocate, the difference between someones life and death can hang on a zero tolerence approach.

 

If you did something wrong and all the proper penalties weren't applied, that's just unfair IMO

What I meant was if zero tolerance had been in place when you committed those offences it would have been a different story. I don't advocate excessive speed, but as I've said and will say for the last time there are valid reasons why a margin for discretion and circumstances exists. Think we've covered this now.

What I meant was if zero tolerance had been in place when you committed those offences it would have been a different story. I don't advocate excessive speed, but as I've said and will say for the last time there are valid reasons why a margin for discretion and circumstances exists. Think we've covered this now.

 

Sorry but I don't understand what difference zero tolerance would've made

Sorry but I don't understand what difference zero tolerance would've made

To doing 40 in a 20? Lost license probably, and you wouldn't have necessarily had chance to appeal at all.

To doing 40 in a 20? Lost license probably, and you wouldn't have necessarily had chance to appeal at all.

 

You can always appeal AFAIK, and the reduction is because the prosecutor knew the case was weak and evidence was debatable, was agreed to save myself from as you said loosing my license and so that she could get a definite prosecution rather than loosing the case altogether, has nothing to do with zero tolerance, if she insisted on going for 40 in 20 and the evidence was dismissed due to various minor issues I brought up, making the case debatable it could've gone either way.

 

The officers were not involved in this agreement.

 

Zero tolerance wouldn't take anything away from the evidence.

 

i.e. if my speed was measured from the smile on my face, a zero tolerance approach with that measuring device would still not lead to a conviction

You can always appeal AFAIK, and the reduction is because the prosecutor knew the case was weak and evidence was debatable, was agreed to save myself from as you said loosing my license and so that she could get a definite prosecution rather than loosing the case altogether, has nothing to do with zero tolerance, if she insisted on going for 40 in 20 and the evidence was dismissed due to various minor issues I brought up, making the case debatable it could've gone either way.

 

The officers were not involved in this agreement.

 

Zero tolerance wouldn't take anything away from the evidence.

 

i.e. if my speed was measured from the smile on my face, a zero tolerance approach with that measuring device would still not lead to a conviction

It just seems a bit odd to me for you to be saying that even though someone is within 10% they're still over and no matter what the circumstances are should get the penalty and 'do the time for doing the crime'. And yet there you were stood in court on 2 offenses which give or take were double the speed limit and bringing circumstances and working the defense to get your penalty reduced, in so doing you've actually proved my original point that situations aren't always clear cut (even though 40 in a 20 is in many cases far worse than 79 on a motorway, empty or not) and circumstances have to be taken into account. I'm not sure why this discussion is still rolling on to be honest.

A zero tolerance approach doesn't mean that every speeding conviction is proved. It just means that every speeding offence is reported for prosecution. If the police fail with their evidence, or the speed limit signage is inadequate, then that's another issue.

It just seems a bit odd to me for you to be saying that even though someone is within 10% they're still over and no matter what the circumstances are should get the penalty and 'do the time for doing the crime'. And yet there you were stood in court on 2 offenses which give or take were double the speed limit and bringing circumstances and working the defense to get your penalty reduced, in so doing you've actually proved my original point that situations aren't always clear cut (even though 40 in a 20 is in many cases far worse than 79 on a motorway, empty or not) and circumstances have to be taken into account. I'm not sure why this discussion is still rolling on to be honest.

 

 

A zero tolerance approach doesn't mean that every speeding conviction is proved. It just means that every speeding offence is reported for prosecution. If the police fail with their evidence, or the speed limit signage is inadequate, then that's another issue.

 

As rustynuts said, I don't think you understand what a zero tolerance policy means, my argument was based on what could and could not be proved, nothing to do with zero tolerance. At the end of the day I did face consequences, i.e. summons to court.

 

My point being you should be reported for an offence that you are caught making and that an appeal on the basis than you were within 10% +2 will do nothing to benefit your case otherwise than waste your time and the courts time, even if you were within 10% +2 the court will still see it as you were over the limit and will impose a penalty, with the 'appeal' of 10% +2 they would probably give you the minimum sentencing which is 3 points and a fine, which is what you would've received by just accepting an FPN, which brings me back to the original point I was making, that type of argument won't do anything in a defendants favour.

As rustynuts said, I don't think you understand what a zero tolerance policy means, my argument was based on what could and could not be proved, nothing to do with zero tolerance. At the end of the day I did face consequences, i.e. summons to court.

 

My point being you should be reported for an offence that you are caught making and that an appeal on the basis than you were within 10% +2 will do nothing to benefit your case otherwise than waste your time and the courts time, even if you were within 10% +2 the court will still see it as you were over the limit and will impose a penalty, with the 'appeal' of 10% +2 they would probably give you the minimum sentencing which is 3 points and a fine, which is what you would've received by just accepting an FPN, which brings me back to the original point I was making, that type of argument won't do anything in a defendants favour.

I don't think you quite understand my argument in that within 10% or 10% + 2 should still stand as a margin for discretion and circumstances zero tolerance or not, because speeding isn't always a clear cut case as your example has demonstrated. There are reasons why the 10% is in place and IMO they should still stand. I don't see that there is much wrong with the system as it is, other than in cases of truly excessive speed for the conditions ie well over 10% or double the speed limit the law may be too lenient where cases are proven.

if it makes the op feel any better, i think i have one on its way to me too. Sure i got zapped along the A417 in gloucestershire/wilthsire on the way back from ordering the new Octy yesterday. :-((

 

The last time i got done was in north yorkshire when we were on our way to buy the wife Fabia. I got a speed awareness course then so don't think i will be getting offered one this time as it was only just over a year ago. :-((((

I don't think you quite understand my argument in that within 10% or 10% + 2 should still stand as a margin for discretion and circumstances zero tolerance or not, because speeding isn't always a clear cut case as your example has demonstrated. There are reasons why the 10% is in place and IMO they should still stand. I don't see that there is much wrong with the system as it is, other than in cases of truly excessive speed for the conditions ie well over 10% or double the speed limit the law may be too lenient where cases are proven.

 

The 10% does stand, for equipment accuracy Above 60mph, and 2mph does stand for equipment accuracy Under 60mph and the point in the case of discretion is that it can go either way, the vehicles we drive also allow upto 10%. And in cases where the speed is well over the speed limit, there are also categories in which these speeds fall to for appropriate categories, i.e. 41 in a 20 is 6 points or disqualification, minimum.

 

Also, how can you have discretion with zero tolerance lol.

The 10% does stand, for equipment accuracy Above 60mph, and 2mph does stand for equipment accuracy Under 60mph and the point in the case of discretion is that it can go either way, the vehicles we drive also allow upto 10%. And in cases where the speed is well over the speed limit, there are also categories in which these speeds fall to for appropriate categories, i.e. 41 in a 20 is 6 points or disqualification, minimum.

 

Also, how can you have discretion with zero tolerance lol.

But in your early posts you claimed that 10% is knowingly speeding and as such should be up for prosecution, which is what I don't necessarily agree with.

But in your early posts you claimed that 10% is knowingly speeding and as such should be up for prosecution, which is what I don't necessarily agree with.

 

That referred to the inaccuracy of the speedo, i.e. 30mph zone, allow 2mph for equipment accuracy, = 32 mph, so lets say zero tolerance, so speed to start handing out NIPs at 33, so 33mph, + 10% speedo inaccuracy, vehicle will display 36 mph, surely anybody doing 36 in 30 will be knowingly speeding? and thats just the minimum at which prosecution starts, so essential if we do +2

 

35mph +10% speedo accuracy would be showing 38.5mph (analog speedo would be in the reagion or 39 and digital one, may, automatically round it up). So basically what your suggesting is that anybody doing under 39mph in a 30 wouldn't notice they're speeding?, I mean I would notice if my speedo said 35 or even 32, but to not notice the speedo was displaying 39, surely that's driving without due care and attention?

if it makes the op feel any better, i think i have one on its way to me too. Sure i got zapped along the A417 in gloucestershire/wilthsire on the way back from ordering the new Octy yesterday. :-((

 

The last time i got done was in north yorkshire when we were on our way to buy the wife Fabia. I got a speed awareness course then so don't think i will be getting offered one this time as it was only just over a year ago. :-((((

Don't think you will if it was only just over a year ago I'm afraid mate. Can't remember the window now but it's not that soon, see what happens.

To be honest. My only hope is that they were targeting one of the cars near me and not me. But I am clutching at straws really. Lol.