View Full Version : Penalties for speeding
Does someone know what the penalty for say, doing 60 in a 30 is? I think I need to brought back to reason as I've been going a bit quick recently. :oops:
Wiltshire7
10-08-05, 08:17 AM
3 points and a fine i guess.
Does someone know what the penalty for say, doing 60 in a 30 is? I think I need to brought back to reason as I've been going a bit quick recently. :oops:
That must make sense to someone!!!
could be a ban, or a conditional offer. 9/10 its a fixed penalty of £60 and 3 points, however, i think it may have gone up to £100!
Doing 60 in a 30 is likely to result in you being taken to court, and from what I've seen you could be looking at 5 points and a hefty fine.
Basically I've been riding like a nutter recently. I need something to scare me into keeping the speed down.
Ok, how about 90 on a dual carriage way? (not m-way).
Basically I've been riding like a nutter recently. I need something to scare me into keeping the speed down.
Ok, how about 90 on a dual carriage way? (not m-way).
At the end of the day speeding anywehere, is a non no, but most of us do it. If you get caught, it all depends an a huge number of factors. How your caught, and if by a rare police officer, then its down to thier discrestion (sp?) You may get off with a severly slapped wrist, or a prision sentence!
Use speed wisely is all i can say.
Eggspit
10-08-05, 08:43 AM
Doing 30mph over the speed limit ….
Optimistic view : 3 points / £60 fine
Realistic View : Court hearing / 3 to 5 points / £100+ fine / possible ban
Ideal View : Police officer was so impressed the way you controlled your SV doing twice the speed limit that he lets you off and sponsors you for next seasons superbikes
Im always feeling Optimistic ..!
Egg
Speeding at 60 in a 30 will see you with a ban, almost certainly. 90 on a dual carriageway, providing it is NSL, will probably get you a 3 pont FPN.
Ideal View : Police officer was so impressed the way you controlled your SV doing twice the speed limit that he lets you off and sponsors you for next seasons superbikbes
que for BIGAPE's miracle.
I got caught doing exactly that in '98 (in a car).
I had to go to court and recieved a £365 fine and a one month ban.
Happy days.
Anonymous
10-08-05, 09:53 AM
60 in a 30 = A court appearance, 6 points, a fine, and costs.
A former colleague of mine was done for 54 in a 30 and received this exact punishment.
Wiltshire7
10-08-05, 09:56 AM
u were banned for doing 60 in a 30? thats a bit ****!
did u have previous points?
btw thor, if u wanna be scared into slowing down then maybe the legal punishments arnt really what u need. go and speak to a paramedic and they will tell u the real punishment for speeding. (or several of the members on here).
That's the thing, I don't speed if I don't think it's safe. Unless I am riding like a ****, and then I'm just a ****, and I deserve what I get. I'm just worried about getting caught!
I have never been stopped by police and never recieved any NIP for the bike, but a good excuse when receiving a NIP is
"I was not the driver/rider and my friend who was visiting form Australia/India/AFrica was driving/riding at the time."
Anonymous
10-08-05, 11:32 AM
It's not a good excuse and if found out you will be prosecuted under a Section 172 offence, which will lead to further fines and possibly 6 points imposed by the magistrates.
Doing twice the speed limit is an automatic ban
Sir Trev
10-08-05, 11:58 AM
One of the guys here at work got done 3 points and a fine for doing 36 in a 30. But they were having a crackdown day.
If you get a magistrate in a bad mood or who doesn't like bikers you could get banned :shock: , would be unusual but the guidelines give the magistrates quite a lot of leaway to do what they want. Minimum would be 3 points and £60 fine and typical for london would be 4-6 points and £150 fine.
http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/SpeedVSFines/SpeedVSFines.htm
northwind
10-08-05, 06:33 PM
Basically I've been riding like a nutter recently. I need something to scare me into keeping the speed down.
OK then, the penalty is A SLOW AND AGONISING DEATH!
SVeeedy Gonzales
10-08-05, 10:01 PM
Thor - is this a sustained 60 or a brief burst?
I think it's fine if you're doing it for an overtake or on a clear stretch of road where you could go faster. Obviously the police probably wouldn't see it that way. It depends on who you get caught by as to whether you'll get ignored or busted badly.
But if you do it in the right places and when you can see it's all clear, you won't get caught :twisted:
It's not a good excuse and if found out you will be prosecuted under a Section 172 offence, which will lead to further fines and possibly 6 points imposed by the magistrates.
Why is this not a good excuse? It is there on the NIP.
And how exactly will one get caught?
It's not a good excuse and if found out you will be prosecuted under a Section 172 offence, which will lead to further fines and possibly 6 points imposed by the magistrates.
Why is this not a good excuse? It is there on the NIP.
And how exactly will one get caught?
Finding loopholes is one thing but lying is going to get you in trouble!
For a nice loophole that has got a few people off you could try this:
Loophole in Section 172 Loophole, not signing the NIP form?
A loophole does appear to exist, but it is not 100% foolproof as much of the law around the loophole is somewhat cloudy and untried. Section 172 Loophole. This loophole is based upon returning your NIP paperwork unsigned. It is not as straightforward as just returning it unsigned and whilst recent court cases have clarified some parts, they have also clouded others. In summary the situation is (January 2004):
If you return your form unsigned then as you have not signed the documents its contents are not considered a "statement in writing" for the purposes of Section 12 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Accordingly it is inadmissible as evidence under the Road Traffic Offenders Act.
BUT
If the form was completed by the defendant then it could amount to a confession under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). This has been tested in a number of cases and been thrown out. In Bristol Crown court (Case # A20020257) on 13th December 2002 the case against John Pickford was dropped as the court concluded that as the form was unsigned it could not be taken as a confession as there was no evidence that the defendant had made it. Judge Ticehurst then went on to famously describe the situation as a lacuna in the law and that parliament will need to update the law.
SO to you will need to get someone else to complete the form for you on your behalf. This will need to be someone who can't be called to give evidence against you - so your solicitor or your spouse. You should not give them specific advice on how the form should be completed, other than asking them to ensure the legal requirements are complied with. And don't sign the form. This approach has worked in the past in a number of high profile "celebrity" cases. The person who completes the form should write a brief note explaining that they have filled out the form on your behalf acting as your agent. They should retain this note as it will be needed by you if the case goes to court.
It is highly likely that you will then receive an aggressive letter in response to your unsigned form. It is almost certain that they will refer to a ruling in a case DPP vs Broomfield 2002 and claim that this case confirmed that you must return the form completed and signed. You can read full details of this case here
We would suggest that you write back to them and point out a few key facts and ask them for clarification.
In DPP v Broomfield, Judge Wilkie concluded that a Police "Authority could include reasonable instructions as to the manner in which information was to be provided" in relation to Section 172 and that this could include written information. Judge Wilkie did not state that written information should be signed.
On the 13th December 2002 at Bristol Crown Court in the case of DPP v Pickford, Judge Ticehurst stated that a lacuna in the law does exist.
As neither Judge Wilkie or Judge Ticehurst have highlighted the law that makes it obligatory to sign the form, please can you tell me specifically where in law it states that it is obligatory to sign the form and I would of course be happy to obey.
The above text will often make the case go away as they realise that you are aware of the law. In some cases the police will continue and next threaten you with going to court. They could try a number of approaches and most of these enter into grey/untried areas of the law, so you'll need a solicitor to progress further.
For example they could use Section 172 against you as it says that the registered keeper of the vehicle must provide the information.
Or they could use PACE to try and make a case that your form is a confession. However if they take this route then they fall into another grey area as if they try and use PACE then they must comply with it themselves and would have needed to either cautioned you or offered a full explanation of your rights prior to being required to complete a voluntary confession. As they have not done this then you have been deprived of your rights (under PACE) and under Article 6 of the ECHR to a fair trial and that what they are trying to do would fall under the category of a malicious prosecution. We do not believe that PACE applies in Scottish law.
So in summary, if you receive a NiP
Get your legal representative or spouse to complete the form
Get them to write a dated statement confirming that they have completed the form and don't send this back with the form
Return the form unsigned
Await a response and if they refer to DPP vs Broomfield 2002 then send them a response clarifiying this situation
If they still continue with the case you will need a solicitor to support you as part of the next step will be proceeding to court and being represented. This representation will cost you a few hundred pounds and it may not work the first time around and may need to go to appeal before you get the result you are aiming for.
Taken from http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Rules_useage/The_Law.htm, keep scrolling down till you get past the images of an NIP.
Up to 60 in a 30 (Provided that speed was the only issue, you were'nt driving like a loon as well) is SP30 3points & £60, got done doing 54 in a 30 2 years ago and got a fixed penalty notice. :oops:
(Waits for someone to point out that driving at 60 in a 30 is driving like a loon and have a full-on soapbox moment) :roll:
Over 60 is an automatic court appearance and unlikley to be fun, as noted above Bans, Fines and points are all on the cards. :shock: :(
philc2000
11-08-05, 03:47 PM
my two pence worth on the never ending speeding/points/fine debate:
it depends, if you get points through the post it's likely to be £60 and 3pts. If you end up in court it'll be more (pts and fine). When I was up in court they asked me how much I earned before deciding on the fine, I got 6pts and £600 fine for 102 on the motorway (70 limit).
Have you actually been caught speeding or were these just hypothetical questions?
Either way I'd definitely slow down in 30s and 40s, most accidents happen here and speaking from personal experience you don't want to have an accident, it hurts, keeps you off work and is expensive.
Thor...tut tut speeding?? If, by chance, you were doing 60ish in a 30 then you are doing over double the speed limit and they are pretty strict about that nowadays. I would have thought you were looking at a court appearance and probably a short ban. Or at least, more than 3 points and a £60 fine!
Don't forget the knockon effect this has on insurance either, and it affects car insurance as well as bike remember!
Steve W
11-08-05, 09:06 PM
In my view and I don't know whether the courts think likewise but suspect they may there's a bit of a difference beween doing 60 in a 30 and 90 in a 60 limit... I think the trouble with the safety argument is that IMHO it is quite a bit more likely than some toddler will run out in a 30 zone than in a 60 which is the main reason I don't speed (noticeably) in the former but do in the latter. I suppose I'm saying I'm not sure it is ever safe to ride at 60 ina 30 zone.
Whilke a fine is unpleasant and a ban depending on your employment and how you get to work etc very difficult, risking seriously injuring someone (even if technically 'their fault') is what I find stops me...
Anonymous
11-08-05, 09:30 PM
I'm saying I'm not sure it is ever safe to ride at 60 ina 30 zone.
Even the ones that used to be NSLs before the stupid "speed kills" policy took off?
Yes, Martin.
If it's a 30 limit, then it's not for individuals to decide whether it's safe to go faster and then hope to be excused.
Can't really understand why peeps want to take the risk. Yes you save yourself a minute or so but what do you do with the minute you save? Anyway it's much more fun to wind the throttle open when you see the GLF sign again, no?
SVeeedy Gonzales
11-08-05, 10:16 PM
Yes, Martin.
If it's a 30 limit, then it's not for individuals to decide whether it's safe to go faster and then hope to be excused.
Can't really understand why peeps want to take the risk. Yes you save yourself a minute or so but what do you do with the minute you save? Anyway it's much more fun to wind the throttle open when you see the GLF sign again, no?
I think it's more that there's a risk, rather than saving time. When I speed (and filter, etc.) it gives me a buzz knowing I'm taking a (usually small and highly calculated) risk. That's at the heart of biking.
With you on the going slow just so you can open her up though! That can cause problems as well... most car or foot bound coppers may see a bike accelerate from 30 to 60 at the sign and think that doing it that fast = reckless driving...
With you on the going slow just so you can open her up though! That can cause problems as well... most car or foot bound coppers may see a bike accelerate from 30 to 60 at the sign and think that doing it that fast = reckless driving...
But I do it just so I don't have a cage up my zorst, give a good gap. Know what you means, though.
Anonymous
11-08-05, 10:59 PM
Yes, Martin.
If it's a 30 limit, then it's not for individuals to decide whether it's safe to go faster and then hope to be excused.
Can't really understand why peeps want to take the risk. Yes you save yourself a minute or so but what do you do with the minute you save? Anyway it's much more fun to wind the throttle open when you see the GLF sign again, no?
Years ago, I'd absolutely agree on nearly 100% of 30mph limits I've travelled through as they were rightly recommended by qualified highway engineers and not Eurocratic non-drivers who sit in an public office hanging off every word Darling spouts.
There are several recent examples of councils abusing speed limits which have negative safety benefit. A most notable one is the A34 at Handforth Dean. I'm sure you're familiar with it Ed, but for those who aren't, this is a motorway standard dual-carriageway with graded junctions, Armco barriers, and an unfathomable 30 mph limit. Yes, there is a Gatso and "conveniently" it's behind a bridge where obviously it can deliver the best road safety improvements. :roll:
All you end up with, time and time again, particularly when it's busy - is a bunch of frustrated motorists, a significant proportion of them exceeding the posted limit. They see the camera, slam the brakes on to ensure compliance, and you're left with a fantastic potential for an instantaneous concertina effect and a high probability of rear ending.
It seems that there is a trend at the moment:
1. Find high quality roads which used to have 40+ limits
2. Drop the limit to 30
3. The 85th %ile speed of the road will probably still be 40/50 mph. Use
speed-unrelated crashes to push for the installation of a camera*
4. Camera installed - fines roll in, crashes increase. Justification for more cameras on the road as "one isn't enough"
*It's absolutely amazing reading published FoI requests for crash causation statistics at camera sites - just how few of them have "excessive speed" even listed, never mind as a primary factor. To get the "1/3 of crashes are caused by speed" rubbish, they lump in things like "tailgating" and "driving too close" along with even more unrelated things like "inattention". By their very same logic, if they are willing to include such erroneous data, then they should be stating that "one-hundred percent of crashes are caused by speed", as you can't have a crash if you're not moving.
I strongly believe the Government have known for a while that the speed camera programme has been a disaster, but won't publically admit it because of the absolute backlash that would result. It's sickeningly poor policy and I am convinced it is costing us dearly in:
a) A massive increase in uninsured drivers and increased premiums for us as a result.
b) A significant erosion of respect for the Police.
c) Judicial integrity - how can a Magistrates court be a partner in a Safety Camera Partnership and not be even slightly biased?
... and more soberingly,
d) More fatalities on the roads
Regards,
Martin
Brilliantly argued :notworthy:
There's a research paper on the Transport Department website which makes clear that excessive speed is not, generally, a primary causative factor in prangs. Mostly it's driver inability to assess speed, inattention, tiredness, or some other cause, but IIRC excessive speed is a significant factor in fatal accidents and in accidents involving PTWs whether or not fatal.
I know the A34 and have often wondered why there is such a crazy limit. It's very frustrating and drivers behave exactly as you describe.
Sid Squid
12-08-05, 07:21 AM
Even the ones that used to be NSLs before the stupid "speed kills" policy took off?
Quite.
Yes, Martin.
If it's a 30 limit, then it's not for individuals to decide whether it's safe to go faster and then hope to be excused.
Can't really understand why peeps want to take the risk. Yes you save yourself a minute or so but what do you do with the minute you save? Anyway it's much more fun to wind the throttle open when you see the GLF sign again, no?
How about an entire county now blighted by transparently daft and inappropriate 30 limits, (that until very recently were NSLs), and mile upon mile of unnecessary unbroken double white lines?
The LAs and Police need to think A LOT harder about whether this is a good idea, this constant 'crying wolf' only erodes public belief that speed limits and road markings are good advice that needs following.
This worries me as there are now many drivers/riders that no longer have much reason to believe that many road markings are in any way sensible, and are thus unsurprisingly less inclined to take their advice even on those occasions when they are.
blacksheep
12-08-05, 07:32 AM
I got done for doing 29mph over the limit (on the motorway in the cage), first offence in 25 years motoring.
6 points and £365 fine :shock:
Slowed me down a bit............................for a week :twisted:
I think one of things that was causing me to speed so often was the fear of being late! I guess I just can't over the fact that it takes me over an hour to travel 15miles - on a ****ing motorbike! :evil:
How about an entire county now blighted by transparently daft and inappropriate 30 limits, (that until very recently were NSLs), and mile upon mile of unnecessary unbroken double white lines?
The LAs and Police need to think A LOT harder about whether this is a good idea, this constant 'crying wolf' only erodes public belief that speed limits and road markings are good advice that needs following.
This worries me as there are now many drivers/riders that no longer have much reason to believe that many road markings are in any way sensible, and are thus unsurprisingly less inclined to take their advice even on those occasions when they are.
SS, I entirely agree - all I'm saying is that the mags won't be impressed by a rider thinking that their judgement is better than that of those you list. Yes of course it's daft, of course it's done with revenue raising in mind, of course it brings the whole system into disrepute. If you take the risk, and get caught, the court won't listen when you ay 'it was an open road with nothing in sight'.
creamerybutter
12-08-05, 10:10 AM
Does someone know what the penalty for say, doing 60 in a 30 is? I think I need to brought back to reason as I've been going a bit quick recently. :oops:
Well at some point in the not too distant future I will be able to answer that question. A brief blat at 60 (no more than a few hundred yards) before returning to a still illegal 40 on a industrial dual carriageway (that everyone I knew thought was a 40) on a Saturday evening unfortunately in vew of an unmarked police car. Something I have seen cars/Bikes/Vans as well as Police cars (without lights going) on that same stretch of road that has had no serious accident in the 18 years my mum has lived round by it.
Steve W
12-08-05, 06:01 PM
I wonder if this creating additional 30 zones is more of a southern thing? Up here I can only think of one which has been created (from a 40) and is debatable - not least because a couple of miles further on there is a 40 zone where there is much more argument for it being a 30.
Was p*ssed off recently at a double white line appearing overnight on a nice hill where swooping past cars was extremely good fun - no notice or warning about the change. It's an area where a car driver has to be pretty quick to overtake safely but on a bike it's pretty easy...
I think three things are in play, generally.
1 Nanny state - tell everyone what to do. eliminate people having to make their own judgments, it's safer, less risk etc. The argument against this is that, of course, people can no longer use their judgment when they need to.
2 Indirect taxation is much easier than direct taxation to increase without a political storm and it is even easier when you can hide speed cameras behind a (largely spurious) safety argument. In my view the reason for speed cameras now is largely revenue raising. I find it difficult to believe that the roads which I regular travel in Leeds (no fixed cameras in North Yorkshire, (I think)) where there are cameras have had them placed there for safety reasons
3 Cameras are much cheaper than employing people to police traffic properly and exercise judgment (see link to 1).
My view is don't speed in 30s (the ones I frequent, anyway), speed elsewhere if safe and the mood takes me, pay fines/take points if and when it happens, minimise chances of getting a ban cos that would make life/work pretty diffcult.
northwind
12-08-05, 06:39 PM
I don't know why those htat set the limits continue top fail to understand that if they put unrealistically low limits on fast roads, people ignore them- but that as a result of ignoring the inappropriate 30s, people are far more likely to ignore 30 limits where they're actually needed?
It's like roads with SLOW on every bend... I'm sure you all know of one, some really rapid road where you barely need to brake for the bends,with SLOW before every one and zig zag signs for no apparent reason? So you can get desensetised to it, then you come across one of those really bad-assed roads where SLOW sign means SLOW OR YOU'LL DIE...
Steve W
12-08-05, 08:31 PM
Yep - signs re slow for bends and zig zags are incredibly inconsistent... I hav the joy :wink: at the moment of teaching my two daughters (separately - thank goodness) to drive and the older one zapped round a right hand bend a bit fast and was a bit surprised that it kept turning - she steered out of it quite well and it was a good lesson for her but she was most indignant about the inconsistency of it all... she was not awfully impressed by my comment 'welcome to the real world!'
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.