merc0447:
ROG If there was a way to avoid 3 points and a 60 pound fine you wouldn’t take it? If there is indeed a loophole its not the person using it that’s in the wrong, its the person who passed the law/regulations that is wrong.
How many times have you heard something about a loophole on the news…loads! Why because our justice system is there for the taking by a smart lawyer - we have a bunch of retards running this country.
Speed cameras are a joke anyway, supposed to be the flagship campaign in road safety and people just stick the foot down as soon as they go past. The only way to catch proper dangerous drivers and reduce speed is more police on the roads.
The whole issue of ‘reducing’ speed is the problem not the cameras with your idea we’d just be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.So why is high speed and dangerous driving put under the same heading in your idea??.Taken to it’s logical conclusion all motor vehicles would have to go back to having a man with a flag walking in front of them the same should apply to trains as well in that case.
Rog seems to be getting well wound up about this thread. He seems to be taking what he himself sees as the Moral Highground. He is of course well entitled to do this; Although it must be borne in mind that unlike Harry, and all of the Practical and Working HGV Divers on this site, he himself does not rely on his HGV License to the same extent that they do.
Harry has mentioned the 3 “templates” with which he believes he can avoid prosecution for this alleged offence -of speeding-. Never mind the moral aspect, it is my belief that Harry is ethically correct in doing everything that he can ,in order to protect his license. Loopholes are only able to work ,if there is in fact any error in the way in which the relevant legislation is drafted. (There,s a pm on the way Harry).
Rog is in a different position. Therefore he can still pontificate from the moral highground that he seems to occupy.
Speeding on it’s own is not necessarily dangerous driving or anything else but it would take more than a speed camers to determine that.
LGVs do over 40 on SCs but that does not mean it is dangerous or unsafe.
The point here is that if a driver does break the legal limit and gets caught on a speed camera for breaking then why should they be allowed to get away with it ?
Buycrider:
Rog seems to be getting well wound up about this thread. He seems to be taking what he himself sees as the Moral Highground. He is of course well entitled to do this; Although it must be borne in mind that unlike Harry, and all of the Practical and Working HGV Divers on this site, he himself does not rely on his HGV License to the same extent that they do.
Moral highgound my foot !!!
Surely the argument is that if the licence is to be relied upon then don’t break the law.
If you do break the law then be prepared to get punished for it
Looking for loopholes to get around it is surely for those that cannot or will not keep within it
Carryfast:
The whole issue of ‘reducing’ speed is the problem not the cameras with your idea we’d just be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.**So why is high speed and dangerous driving put under the same heading in your idea??.**Taken to it’s logical conclusion all motor vehicles would have to go back to having a man with a flag walking in front of them the same should apply to trains as well in that case.
Because the queens highway isn’t knockhill racing course, the faster you go the less reaction time you’ll have and other road users(of whom could be extremely poor drivers) have less reaction time. Like someone said before cameras don’t catch the nutters on the road they are useless. Its like the people on here charging about single carriageway roads riding the limiter and trying to intimidate the supermarket lorry to pull over(cant remeber the threads name). Cameras cant catch that, more police could.
I speed a few mph here on there and if i got caught on camera id try and get out of a fine, but i don’t rip the ■■■■ out of it and charge about like a loony. Speed cameras do work for about 100ft of road then they are redundant. More police on the roads would be a lot more effective.
merc0447:
More police on the roads would be a lot more effective.
I’ll second that along with getting rid of speed camera and replacing them with speed reminder ones that can differentiate between types of vehicles or where the speed MUST be kept down over a long section, the use of average speed cameras.
EDIT - and having realistic safe LGV speed limits for many SCs
ROG:
Speeding on it’s own is not necessarily dangerous driving or anything else but it would take more than a speed camers to determine that.
LGVs do over 40 on SCs but that does not mean it is dangerous or unsafe.
The point here is that if a driver does break the legal limit and gets caught on a speed camera for breaking then why should they be allowed to get away with it ?
All through history Rog bad laws have only been changed by people rebelling against them and if Harry was’nt driving dangerously then he deserves to keep the points off his licence.Let’s hope he’s fired the first shots in the war against politically motivated penalties for ‘speeding’ and maybe it’s time for just a case of dangerous driving or no serious case to answer at all involving points or a large fine.But sadly just as I can’t see how Harry will ‘get away with it’ I can’t see the politicians doing that somehow.Not because of safety reasons but political ones.
Carryfast:
The whole issue of ‘reducing’ speed is the problem not the cameras with your idea we’d just be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.**So why is high speed and dangerous driving put under the same heading in your idea??.**Taken to it’s logical conclusion all motor vehicles would have to go back to having a man with a flag walking in front of them the same should apply to trains as well in that case.
Because the queens highway isn’t knockhill racing course, the faster you go the less reaction time you’ll have and other road users(of whom could be extremely poor drivers) have less reaction time.
So exactly where are all of those ‘extremely poor drivers’ when I legally drive on an unlimited stretch of German autobahn at speeds well over what they can reach at knockhill.Maybe Silverstone would be a better analogy.I think you missed the bit where I said that your idea would mean having to bring back the man walking in front with a flag to cater for the worst of those ‘extremely poor drivers’.
My view is that a driver must take responsibility for their own actions.
and speed cameras should be scrapped in favour of something that takes in the whole picture of a situation and then a realistic judgement can be made for each incident.
Blimey Rog and Harry, you’ve opened a can of worms here haven’t you!?
I agree with Rog, we all know we might get caught and end up with a fine and points - but to be honest for the sake of 6mph I hope Harry’s plan works. I bet over 90% of us are quite partial to a bit of the old 50mph in a 40 But, as opposed to a speed camera, a copper should see the bigger picture - it’s not dangerous in most situations and generally an lgv driver is nearer an expert than an average driver with forward thinking etc, but a camera sees none of this…
On the other hand, there’s some who deserve everything they get - like my brother when he was younger 110mph in a 50 in town he lost his license
Blissy:
I suppose The Defence Could Be That Somebody Else Had Your Number Plate On Their Trailer
interesting
That would’nt work.The NIP goes to registered keeper who then has to say who was driving or he takes the rap.But if you then give the wrong info you’ll get done fo perverting the course of justice which turns 3 points and a fine into a prison sentence.All for 6 mph.Is it any wonder that most people plead guilty straight away.
This ‘loophole’ if it works would surely only work for owner drivers, if it’s a company you work for and they get the NIP first they then respond with your details, meaning that the company then become a potential witness against you should it go to court, because theyve confirmed that you were the driver at the time
Grayham:
This ‘loophole’ if it works would surely only work for owner drivers, if it’s a company you work for and they get the NIP first they then respond with your details, meaning that the company then become a potential witness against you should it go to court, because theyve confirmed that you were the driver at the time
An owner driver is usually the registered keeper and there’s been enough examples to show that it’s not a viable option to get someone else to take the rap who was’nt actually the driver.In the real world whoever was driving at the time will be the person who eventually takes the points.The only defence is when more than one person drives the vehicle and there’s no way of knowing which one was driving at the time and place of the photo.Then it’s more a case of the registered keeper having to prove that than the police having to prove their case regardless of our so called rights in law.
ROG:
Speeding on it’s own is not necessarily dangerous driving or anything else but it would take more than a speed camers to determine that.
LGVs do over 40 on SCs but that does not mean it is dangerous or unsafe.
The point here is that if a driver does break the legal limit and gets caught on a speed camera for breaking then why should they be allowed to get away with it ?
ROG, you have got to understand that my post is intended to be for the benefit of truckers, not theoretical truckers.
But, as opposed to a speed camera, a copper 
he lost his license 
