 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / February 2005Speeding notice - what's the next move?
Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the instant I saw the van and it was reading 35mph. Today I got the Notice of Intended Prosecution, saying that I had been clocked at 40. Now, I'm a fairly law-abiding chap, but there's two things wrong on the Notice. One is the speed, the other is the time - apparently I was clocked at 18:57, but I was actually in my meeting about 5 miles away at 19:00 - I passed the camera van at about 18:45. I know these are very minor discrepancies and I can't prove either of them, but it's made me want to fight it rather than roll over and play dead. For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless, until you factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the village, the road was wide and clear, and I was only doing 35 in any case. There was some discussion here a while back about requesting evidence of the calibration of the device within 14 days of the alleged offence (or something like), with the implication that this proves too much trouble for the "partnership" and they might let it drop. Can anyone remind me of what to do? My next move is to send off the form admitting I was the driver - I assume this doesn't admit guilt, or does it? What's my next move, guys? What's more annoying is that my last ticket was in May 2000, and I was looking forward to having a clean licence again. Apart from the Gatso in 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now off my chest, and thanks for listening :-)  SignatureRich Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous >Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van >on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now >off my chest, and thanks for listening :-) Is there CCTV with a timestamp at the place you had your meeting? SignatureTim Hobbs '58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig" '77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt" '03 Volvo V70 My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com > Is there CCTV with a timestamp at the place you had your meeting? A meeting normal invloves at least one other, could they not verify that the OP was present at or before 1900... ISTR that there is a least one web site with all the "get out of jail free" quirks of the speed camera game. SignatureCheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail Had similar problem and found www.e-database.co.uk a very useful site to get over my problem. Hope it helps. >> Is there CCTV with a timestamp at the place you had your meeting? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ISTR that there is a least one web site with all the "get out of jail > free" quirks of the speed camera game. >Had similar problem and found www.e-database.co.uk a very useful site to get >over my problem. Hope it helps. not fair :-) SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that Too Busy: Your mind is like a motorway. Sometimes it can be jammed by too much traffic. Avoid the jams by never using your mind on a Bank Holiday weekend. from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton. So Austin Shackles was, like >> Had similar problem and found www.e-database.co.uk a very useful >> site to get over my problem. Hope it helps. > > not fair :-) Seen it already. :-) SignatureRich Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous So Tim Hobbs was, like > <snip> > > Is there CCTV with a timestamp at the place you had your meeting? Unfortunately not :-( SignatureRich Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless, until you > factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the village, the > road was wide and clear, and I was only doing 35 in any case. Hate to be irritating but a friend of mine had the same problem when coming to work in the morning bemoaning the ticket for 40 in a 30 zone. I pointed out to him that other users expect driving at the said speed along the road as they also expect driving on the left of the road even on a deserted road. I also pointed out that the ticket would have been the least of his worries had he injured one of my children attempting to cross the road ( legally ); I would have had every intention of visiting him and also breaking the law by causing his person some considerable physical damage. After that he agreed that as we live in a society where rules cause us to live in reasonable harmony he was in the wrong and accepted the ticket with good grace and a much reduced lack of selfishness. John H > I pointed out to him that other users expect driving at the said > speed along the road as they also expect driving on the left of the > road even on a deserted road. I also pointed out that the ticket > would have been the least of his worries had he injured one of my > children attempting to cross the road ( legally ); I agree but the authorities ought to make doubly sure that that any evidence they produce is 100% accurate. It appears that this is not always the case and when the details are inaccurate it wastes everybodys time. SignatureCheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail >> I pointed out to him that other users expect driving at the said >> speed along the road as they also expect driving on the left of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >always the case and when the details are inaccurate it wastes >everybodys time. I agree with that. I have no problem with living by the laws even if I don't agree with them, breaking a law is not the way to register your disagreement with it. But the application of the law has to be seen to be accurate and reliable otherwise people lose respect for it, as is often the case with seppding offences caught by camera. Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.) Signature_________________________________________ www.markvarleyphoto.co.uk 1984 110 CSW 2.5(na)D (3,000 rivets flying in close formation) _________________________________________ So Hirsty's was, like > For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless, until you >> factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > John H Don't quite know what you are accusing me of here. The place I was clocked is well outside the village, with no children OAPs or even other cars in sight - apart from the camera van. The only reason it is a 30 limit is that the signs are posted well outside the village to slow cars coming in from the other direction (quite rightly) - there was no *safety* reason for the limit to be there going out of the village. But many people do start to accelerate there (village hazards passed, clear road ahead) and it seems a great place to catch a few ordinary drivers on a technicality. As far as children are concerned, I have two of my own and I'm one of those who support rigidly enforced 20mph limits outside schools. But I hope that if someone injured them while they were crossing the road, I would allow the law to take its course rather than going round and breaking their legs, as you seem to imply. What good would that do? Your tone is that of the vigilante and the bully. > I would have had > every intention of visiting him and also breaking the law by causing > his person some considerable physical damage. We're missing the point here. I was a couple of mph over the limit, and I will hold my hands up to that, but the speed and time on the notice are wrong, and I was asking for advice as to what I could do about it. You seem to set great store by playing by the rules - but it works both ways. I am not going to hold my hands up to something I did not do. Come to see me and drive round with me for the day - I think you will find I am neither selfish nor reckless. SignatureRich Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous Richard, Whilst not condoning speeding (or any other illegal act) I think you might find some useful information at www.pepipoo.com Your assetion that you were only doing 35 may be correct but that is not to say you weren't going faster before you saw the van and that was when they zapped you. Regards Steve G > Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van > on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now > off my chest, and thanks for listening :-) > Richard, > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now > > off my chest, and thanks for listening :-) My mother is a magistrate at a nortumberland court, and she finds its ussually a lot easier just to admit it was you, unless you have very good evidence that is against the case, which you don't seem to have. So philip@philipshouse.co.uk was, like > My mother is a magistrate at a nortumberland court, and she finds its > ussually a lot easier just to admit it was you, unless you have very > good evidence that is against the case, which you don't seem to have. I admit it was me, and I admit I was about 5mph over the limit. No problem there. What I would argue (to a magistrate or anyone else) is that the speed and the time of the "offence" were actually wrong. Would your mother approve of this in her court? If so, I'm glad I don't live in Northumberland. SignatureRich Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous >So philip@philipshouse.co.uk was, like > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >approve of this in her court? If so, I'm glad I don't live in >Northumberland. Quite a few 'mothers' are Jps :-) May I suggest you allow it to go before the court and then request an investigation into potential irregularities in the evidence? I don't mean 'demand', more, as I said, 'request'. You may add that this is not a denial of the offence, however it is a denial of the degree of the offence. May sound daft... So Mother" <"@ {m} @ was, like >> So philip@philipshouse.co.uk was, like >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > not a denial of the offence, however it is a denial of the degree of > the offence. May sound daft... The daftest ideas are often the best :-) Makes sense, though, if I get that far. I won't deny the offence, only their figures. I may borrow your phraseology, though - it sounds suitably clued-up. I've sent off the form admitting it was me (which it was) and I'm waiting for the actual prosecution documents to come though. I'm going to request the calibration certificates etc on the camera used, and if they check out I'll probably plead guilty. I've got too much going on in my life at the moment to add to the hassle and worry. I'm sort of hoping that they may think it not worth the aggro and drop it. I was talking to a biker today who has been summonsed 4 times in the last year and threw tham all in the bin. Said he never heard from them again. May be just talk, but if they are catching about 5000 a year in this county**, then I guess being awkward might persuade them not to be *rsed. (** Local "Safety" camera partnership made ?300,000 at the last count. Local paper made them reveal the figure under the new Freedom of Information Act. They had asked them twice before, but the Talivan refused to release the revenue figures "as it might undermine support for the safety initiative". You soddin well bet it would.) SignatureRich Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous > I've sent off the form admitting it was me (which it was) and I'm waiting > for the actual prosecution documents to come though. I'm going to request > the calibration certificates etc on the camera used, and if they check out > I'll probably plead guilty. I've got too much going on in my life at the > moment to add to the hassle and worry. If UK law is like NZ law then you'd best request the training records of the operator too. In NZ a request like this often leads to the whole thing being dropped as the operator had missed his 6 monthly refresher course or whatever. If they don't have training records you might like to insinuate that as the operator's knowledge/technique hadn't been tested/refreshed of late there is substantial doubt as to whether the equipment was being deployed correctly. SignatureEMB >The daftest ideas are often the best :-) Makes sense, though, if I get that >far. I won't deny the offence, only their figures. I may borrow your >phraseology, though - it sounds suitably clued-up. It may sound even dafter, but Courts do try to be fair. Moreover, they have a duty to be fair and impartial. If you request of the Court, or the bench, information in order to further clarify the evidence as presented, they have a duty to listen to your request and if reasonable, in the interest of justice, grant it. >I'm sort of hoping that they may think it not worth the aggro and drop it. >I was talking to a biker today who has been summonsed 4 times in the last >year and threw tham all in the bin. Said he never heard from them again. >May be just talk, but if they are catching about 5000 a year in this >county**, then I guess being awkward might persuade them not to be *rsed. This won't really be an issue soon as statutory fines will be doshed out in such 'FTS'* circumstances (I cannot comment upon whether this is a quick, easy and dirty means of disposal of 'non-proven offences'). >(** Local "Safety" camera partnership made £300,000 at the last count. >Local paper made them reveal the figure under the new Freedom of Information >Act. They had asked them twice before, but the Talivan refused to release >the revenue figures "as it might undermine support for the safety >initiative". You soddin well bet it would.) Courts (sadly) don't care about this. Their duty is to weigh the evidence, and make a judgement accordingly. If you don't like it, vote for a change - the Police and Courts aren't working hand-in-hand, both simply do what they are charged to do by the lawmakers. Mind, whoever you vote for, 'The Government' always seem to get in... ;-) * FTS - Fail To Show, also knows as DNA - Did Not Attend >Courts (sadly) don't care about this. Their duty is to weigh the >evidence, and make a judgement accordingly. If you don't like it, >vote for a change - the Police and Courts aren't working hand-in-hand, >both simply do what they are charged to do by the lawmakers. Mind, >whoever you vote for, 'The Government' always seem to get in... ;-) ain't that the truth. Mind, I do rather like the way the freedom of information act is being used to get embarrassing details out of various places that didn't want 'em exposed. I wonder if that's what they had in mind. There was something recently, I know, it was the report about the beagle 2 mars probe. The govt. wanted it suppressed, by the sound of it, but one of the papers used the FIA to get it made public. Sniggers were heard from some quarters. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that "For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination - we learned to talk." Pink Floyd (1994) So SteveG <"s.goodfellow"@blueyonder" < was, like > Richard, > > Whilst not condoning speeding (or any other illegal act) I think you > might find some useful information at www.pepipoo.com Cheers - I'll have a look. SignatureRich Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous theres a very good discusion about this on one of the magazine web sites, LRE or LROI i think. i would do a search there too. It was very info. Went into what to write back, what to ask for, how not to word it etc. Best of luck Mark > So SteveG <"s.goodfellow"@blueyonder" < was, like > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cheers - I'll have a look. You could try the usual - asking to supply certificate of calibration ( sometimes they cant and they have to drop it) Or do the double guilty - tell them you can not remember who was driving and get someone else to plead guilty too - they cannot convict two and you will not be guilty of withholding. otherwise buggered really. what ive noticed around here is the buggers move the 30 signs way out of the villages where you would automatically begin to speed up and zap you there. > Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van > on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now > off my chest, and thanks for listening :-) >the other is the time - apparently I was clocked at 18:57, but I >was actually in my meeting about 5 miles away at 19:00 - I passed the camera >van at about 18:45. I know these are very minor discrepancies and I can't >prove either of them, but it's made me want to fight it rather than roll >over and play dead If you can verify the time (have others swear to your presence 5 miles away at 19:00) then you have a minor point. However, they have a picture of your vehicle... you can do the calibration thing. Evidently it's not set up accurately, or it'd have the right time on it. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that Too Busy: Your mind is like a motorway. Sometimes it can be jammed by too much traffic. Avoid the jams by never using your mind on a Bank Holiday weekend. from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton. Hi Richard, I have a very large e-book about all this - my e-mail address is "andrew"@preaching.co.uk take out the excalamtion marks and I will send you the e-book straigh tback via e-mail. A > Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van > on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now > off my chest, and thanks for listening :-) So Andrew Renshaw was, like > Hi Richard, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A Thanks - I will. SignatureRich Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous > Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van > on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now > off my chest, and thanks for listening :-) Apparently, there's a way round this due to the Police And Criminal Evidence act (PACE). What you allegedly do is as follows:- 1. DO NOT fill in their pre-printed paperwork, if you sign it you are signing a disclaimer to PACE, and the fact that you haven't been cautioned as is required by law. You are effectively signing both an admission to guilt and giving up your statutory right to a caution. 2. Write a letter that complies with your legal obligation, I.E. who was driving and confirmation of the registration. 3. Write the following on the letter. "I am complying with the legal obligation to inform you who was driving the vehicle at the stated time and date, but please note this letter is not an admission of guilt and cannot be used in a court as evidence as I have not been cautioned as is required by uk law and PACE." It is alleged that they cannot prosecute you as they haven't read you your rights and by not signing their pre-printed you have not signed away that right either. A policeman cannot come to your door and read you your rights unless he has evidence to do so, and the civillian firm undertaking the camera van operations cannot bring the legal side against you as they do not hold any warrants to do so. This all came from a thread on www.BMWland.co.uk recently, search there for more info. Badger. >1. DO NOT fill in their pre-printed paperwork, if you sign it you are >signing a disclaimer to PACE, and the fact that you haven't been cautioned >as is required by law. You are effectively signing both an admission to >guilt and giving up your statutory right to a caution. does the paperwork say that on it, in words that the ordinary bod can understand? SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic face by frightening people in the street. from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton. >>1. DO NOT fill in their pre-printed paperwork, if you sign it you are >>signing a disclaimer to PACE, and the fact that you haven't been cautioned [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > does the paperwork say that on it, in words that the ordinary bod can > understand? Austin, that's the impression I get from the guys on the BMWland forum, I've never been unlucky enough to get caught to be in a position to read one myself so can't comment on the wording. I'd imagine its not all that clear, either way, after all it would have been written by a government department!!! Badger. So Austin Shackles was, like >> 1. DO NOT fill in their pre-printed paperwork, if you sign it you are >> signing a disclaimer to PACE, and the fact that you haven't been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > does the paperwork say that on it, in words that the ordinary bod can > understand? Don't think so - the form I have to fill in is just to confirm who was driving (which I am quite happy to do). On receipt of that, they say they will send me the prosecution stuff, which I imagine is where the fun starts. SignatureRich Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous Werwe you speeding or not ??? If so, tough louck thats the law of the land, if not good luck try to wriggle out any way you can. John H > Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van > on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous >Werwe you speeding or not ??? If so, tough louck thats the law of the land, >if not good luck try to wriggle out any way you can. > >John H In many ways I agree. I recently fell out with my Dad for a short while when he was indignant at getting a ticket for 40 in a 30. There was all the usual bluff about 'you can't drive round looking at the speedo', but the fact remains that if you are not capable of controlling the speed of the car, you shouldn't be driving it. But, taking the longer view, if the authorities are going to put speed cameras on the _exits_ of villages (which they do with great regularity) then they serve no purpose other than as revenue raisers. We therefore have every right to make it as difficult as possible for the powers that be to collect our money, including demanding the right time on notices and accurate measurement. There's a camera about to go up near me, and I applaud it as there have been two accidents recently in which vehicles have ended up the garden of someones house. It's actually not possible to go round the corner above 25mph (as many have found out). That is where cameras should be sited, not where law abiding motorists will be accelerating out of a hazard having made a proper assessment of the conditions and being a few yards from a national speed limit sign. I did 65 (reasonably safely) past a camera in Nottingham yesterday in a 40 limit. I'm not sure whether the 'rushing to hospital' excuse (whilst entirely true) will help me out. SignatureTim Hobbs '58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig" '77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt" '03 Volvo V70 My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com So Tim Hobbs was, like >> Werwe you speeding or not ??? If so, tough louck thats the law of >> the land, if not good luck try to wriggle out any way you can. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > speedo', but the fact remains that if you are not capable of > controlling the speed of the car, you shouldn't be driving it. Agreed. > But, taking the longer view, if the authorities are going to put speed > cameras on the _exits_ of villages (which they do with great > regularity) then they serve no purpose other than as revenue raisers. > We therefore have every right to make it as difficult as possible for > the powers that be to collect our money, including demanding the right > time on notices and accurate measurement. What I was trying to say, but put much more clearly. > There's a camera about to go up near me, and I applaud it as there > have been two accidents recently in which vehicles have ended up the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > out of a hazard having made a proper assessment of the conditions and > being a few yards from a national speed limit sign. If all cameras were placed where there was a specific need, I doubt if there would be any opposition - certainly not from me. ISTR that the original GATSOs were to be placed at accident black spots and at traffic lights to stop people going through on amber (weren't they originally called "traffic light cameras"?), and I remember thinking what a good idea that was. > I did 65 (reasonably safely) past a camera in Nottingham yesterday in > a 40 limit. I'm not sure whether the 'rushing to hospital' excuse > (whilst entirely true) will help me out. Good luck! SignatureRich Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous > I did 65 (reasonably safely) past a camera in Nottingham yesterday in > a 40 limit. I'm not sure whether the 'rushing to hospital' excuse > (whilst entirely true) will help me out. I hope you weren't doing 65 around the ringroad at all (I assume you were heading for the QMC, in which case you probably were) The whole damn ringroad and most radial roads in Nottingham are rigged for SPECS now. Far more insidious form of speed camera. P. >> I did 65 (reasonably safely) past a camera in Nottingham yesterday in >> a 40 limit. I'm not sure whether the 'rushing to hospital' excuse [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > P. Isnt that the horrid one that works out your average speed between two points - and if that exceeds the limit you get a notice? I remember when they trialled that on the M1 at leicester - we were doing a job in nottingham and a load of my staff came up from london, when we got there one chap had his head in his hands "whats up malc?" I asked "we were laughing at the registrations being displayed on the matrix sign, only when we got here, the lads checked the car and told me that last one we saw was mine" He got away with it cos they were testing! Si >>Werwe you speeding or not ??? If so, tough louck thats the law of the land, >>if not good luck try to wriggle out any way you can. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >a 40 limit. I'm not sure whether the 'rushing to hospital' excuse >(whilst entirely true) will help me out. Last time I thrashed a speed limit was a rush to hospital, a friend of mine was damn damn close to launching her newborn into my footwell. was something like 60 or 70 in a 40, camera flashed but I never had anything come of it. I'm in Nottingham tomorrow as it happens but I tend to see speed limits as more of a long term goal than a restriction. I am the type that pisses off other road users by sticking rigidly to the speed limit, sorry guys but no amount of gesturing nor driving on my bumper will pressure me into breaking the law. Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.) Signature_________________________________________ www.markvarleyphoto.co.uk 1984 110 CSW 2.5(na)D (3,000 rivets flying in close formation) _________________________________________ I tend to see speed > limits as more of a long term goal than a restriction. I am the type > that pisses off other road users by sticking rigidly to the speed > limit, sorry guys but no amount of gesturing nor driving on my bumper > will pressure me into breaking the law. Got to admit, so am I. Mind you having said that I am all for Necklacing the bloody cameras for the simple reason that they are not used for safety most of the time but simply for revenue gathering. I too am a strong believer in one being responsible for ones own actions. If a rule is set then stick to it otherwise we all start to decide what we will do and sod anybody else. if the rule is so bad then change it at the next vote. John H So Hirsty's was, like > If a rule is set then stick to it otherwise we all start to > decide what we will do and sod anybody else. if the rule is so bad > then change it at the next vote. Good point. So which party should I vote for at the next election if I want "safety" cameras restricted to "safety" related sites? No-one's offering that at the moment. Democracy, for all its virtues, can be a bit of a blunt instrument. SignatureRich Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous > So Hirsty's was, like > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Democracy, for all its virtues, can be a bit of a blunt instrument. Wandering off-topic slightly further, I think it's more a question of :- "what party is the least likely to lead us into another war that's really none of our business and potentially make us victims of increased terrorism in the process?" Just my tuppenceworth, speaking as someone with first-hand experience. Badger. >Wandering off-topic slightly further, I think it's more a question of :- >"what party is the least likely to lead us into another war that's really >none of our business and potentially make us victims of increased terrorism >in the process?" >Just my tuppenceworth, speaking as someone with first-hand experience. >Badger. <sour> any or all of the shpxref, if the bloody yank government wants it. </sour> SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" George Orwell (1903 - 1950) Animal Farm The speed cameras in Melbourne (Australia) were recently found to be faulty and the cops had to do a lot of refunding and recrediting of demerit points. Shows that fighting things can have a result. Having said that, you've admitted you were going too fast (not at the speed the camera reckons) so cop it sweet and learn from it. A colleague got done for speeding recently (118km/h in a 100km/h zone) and he reckons the thing that really brought it home was being given the nickname "speedy" at work. Peer group pressure made him realise that speeding is never safe. > Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van > on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now > off my chest, and thanks for listening :-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.