Carryfast:
Harry are you sure that camera is’nt showing it’s doing 35 not 36?.If it’s 35 you could try the 10% +2 mph allowance?.
this ‘rule’ does not exist
Harry Monk:
I’ve driven that journey- Evesham to Sittingbourne- probably 300 times in the last nine years and the first time I got it wrong was the week after Thames Valley Police brought the speed limit down…
Harry, I don’t have time to go digging and looking at the moment.
Has the new lower speed limit been introduced within the last six months ?
If so, is the change signed ?
There’s a sign in existence of “New Speed Limit” It’s a quite large black on yellow type. I can’t remember atm if it’s a case of must, should, or may be displayed for up to six months.
In any event, I doubt it would get you off, but it could possibly add to your mitigation if you chose to go that route. Particularly as you say you’ve travelled that road often, and you were flashed in the same week the new lower limit was introduced.
Edit —
I’ve always found it useful for the first line of defence/loophole/call it what you will, to be the one regarding “the enforcement of the limit”
“Is the limit enforceable” can at times be a very interesting and very informative question and answer session 
Signage — Position. Condition. Illumination. Number of. Etc (Remembering of course, our view and line of sight is different to that of car drivers)
The limit itself. Was it “properly applied” Publications. Permissions. Etc (A council can’t just simply decide for example to have a 20 mph zone outside a school/factory, put up some signs then secure a successful prosecution.
Sadly, like most things, it comes down to the “No extra charge after midnight” philosophy.
ROG:
Is it morally right to find a loophole in order to get out of a speeding charge when the driver has been speeding ?
I suppose that would depend on one’s own personal definition and thoughts/opinions of “loopholes”
Personally, I few it thus . . . . .
I passed my driving tests and was awarded the relevant permissions. In doing so I agreed to comply with the rules and laws. I expect others to do the same. Including police, VOSA and others. You see, the police, VOSA and others aren’t the law makers. They are enforcers of the law. There is a huge difference. They should obey the rules they are set by the law makers in the same way as I should.
ROG, how would you now advise someone if asked about defending a charge of speeding at 48 mph while driving an artic in a contraflow with a posted limit of 50 mph ?
Similarly, how would you advise him were he to be charged for using the outside lane of three lane motorway where Lane 1 is closed due to roadworks.
You may argue that they are not “loopholes” as the rules are actually clearly written — should a person choose to actually read the full set of rules closely.
Me, I would say that in the first instance (the contraflow) it’s a loophole relying on the strictest interpretation of one particular word or phrase and that in actual fact the road becomes a physical single carriageway. We should therefore apply the 40 mph “rule” rather than enforceable limit.
dambuster:
ROG, how would you now advise someone if asked about defending a charge of speeding at 48 mph while driving an artic in a contraflow with a posted limit of 50 mph ?
DUALs contraflowed - LGV speed limit legally defined
dambuster:
Similarly, how would you advise him were he to be charged for using the outside lane of three lane motorway where Lane 1 is closed due to roadworks.
Easy - ask the question - is it now a 3 lane motorway ? - the answer wil be no
euromat:
Carryfast:
Harry are you sure that camera is’nt showing it’s doing 35 not 36?.If it’s 35 you could try the 10% +2 mph allowance?.this ‘rule’ does not exist
Not a rule but part of the same ‘guidelines’ which Harry was going to use (but misunderstood) in his defence but I have’nt misunderstood them this time see box 2 in quoted post below.But I was wrong about the 35 mph.The wording says they should be ‘triggered’ ‘at’ 10% + 2 but not under that speed.
Melchett:
Harry Monk:
We aren’t.We are required to follow the rules.
The Police are required to follow the rules.
And that is what this is all about.
But ACPO guidelines are NOT rules, they are exactly what they say they are…guidelines! They are not law nor is any Police force required to follow them! Apart from that I can’t see anywhere in the Acpo guidelines anything that requires vehicle make &/or colour needind to be identified before prosecution… it’s bullpoo!
The prosecution process
Most UK speeding offences are now detected by mobile
or fixed speed cameras, all of which rely on some sort of
photographic evidence for a conviction. The Department
for Transport (DfT) provides guidelines on their use (see
Box 2).Taken from here parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpn218.pdf
See box 2 concerning the speed triggering guidelines.
Carryfast:
See box 2 concerning the speed triggering guidelines.
Oh I’ve read it…have you?
Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines
ACPO guidelines for all types of speed enforcement,
available online2 , advise that, under normal circumstances
speed cameras should be triggered by motorists speeding by
a certain amount, normally 10% + 2 miles per hour.
The 3 words in bold tell the story, It is not law! It is advice (guideline) only!!
Trying a defence based on ACPO guidelines, in Harry’s case, is going to fail… the end!
Melchett:
Carryfast:
See box 2 concerning the speed triggering guidelines.Oh I’ve read it…have you?
Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines
ACPO guidelines for all types of speed enforcement,
available online2 , advise that, under normal circumstances
speed cameras should be triggered by motorists speeding by
a certain amount, normally 10% + 2 miles per hour.The 3 words in bold tell the story, It is not law! It is advice (guideline) only!!
Trying a defence based on ACPO guidelines, in Harry’s case, is going to fail… the end!
And it goes on to say that the reason for that guideline is to allow for any possible discrepancy between camera and vehicle speedometer calibration.A test in court is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.So if a camera triggered at less than 35 in a 30 limit it would be worth contesting the prosecution on grounds of those guidelines because the vehicle speedometer is only deemed as accurate by the DfT to that tolerance or there’s no point in having that guideline there at all.
Carryfast:
And it goes on to say that the reason for that guideline is to allow for any possible discrepancy between camera and vehicle speedometer calibration.A test in court is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.So if a camera triggered at less than 35 in a 30 limit it would be worth contesting the prosecution on grounds of those guidelines because the vehicle speedometer is only deemed as accurate by the DfT to that tolerance or there’s no point in having that guideline there at all.
I’m not disagreeing with you! All Police forces & scamera partnerships should work within the guidelines but some don’t!
I just don’t see any way of defending this on ACPO grounds… a letter to the Chief constable maybe but I wouldn’t bet my mortgage on any joy there! The fact they have issued a FPN in the first place kinda hints at the reply.
Pleading not guilty & going to court is doomed from the start because the evidence shows 35 in a 30 & that’s all the magistrates will look at!
Melchett:
Carryfast:
And it goes on to say that the reason for that guideline is to allow for any possible discrepancy between camera and vehicle speedometer calibration.A test in court is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.So if a camera triggered at less than 35 in a 30 limit it would be worth contesting the prosecution on grounds of those guidelines because the vehicle speedometer is only deemed as accurate by the DfT to that tolerance or there’s no point in having that guideline there at all.I’m not disagreeing with you! All Police forces & scamera partnerships should work within the guidelines but some don’t!
I just don’t see any way of defending this on ACPO grounds… a letter to the Chief constable maybe but I wouldn’t bet my mortgage on any joy there! The fact they have issued a FPN in the first place kinda hints at the reply.
Pleading not guilty & going to court is doomed from the start because the evidence shows 35 in a 30 & that’s all the magistrates will look at!
You’re right there seems to be no argument in Harry’s case because they’ve got every angle covered but it’s a shame to see drivers getting points in cases like his but it’s small points like that one which might save someone else who’s unlucky enough to get caught if the camera evidence is’nt faultless and in line with that tolerance.But having said that I think that cameras might be better than the situation where a copper can technically secure a conviction just on his ‘expert opinion’ and estimate of the vehicle speed.Which includes a possible conviction on whatever speed that the following police car was doing not the vehicle being followed.Which means that a coppers car could see someone in the distance and accelerate to catch them and the speed reached by the police car could be used to convict the driver being followed.
Well, the bottom line is that I tried to exploit a loophole which has worked for me in the past, but didn’t work for me this time because I had a flat trailer on, and the tractor unit can be identified from the photo.
So it’s hands up, £60 and three points. I won’t be attending their Speed Awareness Course, life’s too short!
Here’s the pic again, it’s worth £60 just for a souvenir. The first photo shows my truck on a country road in Oxfordshire with no schools, houses or turnings, and the second one shows it three-quarters of a second later. I always thought 40mph was a more natural limit for the road and I’ve been snapped at 36mph, same speed I suppose I’ve been doing at this point for the last nine years.
Harry Monk:
‘… I won’t be attending their Speed Awareness Course, life’s too short! Here’s the pic again, it’s worth £60 just for a souvenir…’
Life’s ‘…too short…’ to do a training course but not too short to collect a three point reprimand & a bad-news souvenir picture of the law busting event?
I did my ‘learning’ in Suffolk yesterday: The whole experience was a day out, there was endless (gratis) coffee and biscuits & gave us all a chance to scratch a bit whilst chilling. The whole listening & negotiation attitude was refreshingly positive - seemingly for societies benefit .
The same £60 spent two ways? But I’m skipping on fresh air today, am still Billy No-points & can recommend the course (- if only as a sharpener?) to avoid the stigma, ie, of paying for future TV ad’s intended to avoid more dead kids - which is where the fine money (apparently) goes…
I learned some stuff too.
drivereducationleicester.com/
Check out the downloadable PDF on the speed awareness page
Happy Keith:
Harry Monk:
‘… I won’t be attending their Speed Awareness Course, life’s too short! Here’s the pic again, it’s worth £60 just for a souvenir…’Life’s ‘…too short…’ to do a training course but not too short to collect a three point reprimand & a bad-news souvenir picture of the law busting event?
.
That’s right, because I don’t have to take a day off work and pay fuel for a 300 mile round trip to do that. It’s simply cheaper and easier to take the endorsement.
Hard luck with that one Harry. Plod has got you bang to rights. (As zbin always). I,d have just paid up meself, like wot you av dun. That is my personal endorsement. No way would I be going up to Leicester, paying £65 of me hard earned dosh, plus the travel costs,to be lectured about being a naughty tear-arse, by some bird whose wearing a long dress to cover her knock knees.zb-em, I,d have the stamps every time.
Harry Monk:
Sorry Harry, I can feel the Homer Simpson moment you had when you saw the photo of a tiny flat-bed trailer behind you and not a colossal double decker totally obscuring the unit. 
(As well as a full height headboard, you could do with some plain mudflaps too. )
I’ll challenge anything too, if I have legitimate grounds to do so. If I didn’t I would have had 6 points and thousands in fines (mostly parking). Too many folk roll over too easy. 
Harry Monk:
Happy Keith:
Harry Monk:
‘… I won’t be attending their Speed Awareness Course, life’s too short! Here’s the pic again, it’s worth £60 just for a souvenir…’Life’s ‘…too short…’ to do a training course but not too short to collect a three point reprimand & a bad-news souvenir picture of the law busting event?
.That’s right, because I don’t have to take a day off work and pay fuel for a 300 mile round trip to do that. It’s simply cheaper and easier to take the endorsement.
Fair point: My experience was a 192 mile return trip, fuel cost, day off (ie, no money) etc, though another herbert had gone to Suffolk from Cornwall to keep his sheet clean & ‘learn’ summat. Matter of priorities, I suppose …but I didn’t see the point in buying their evidence for £60 (sod that - I can buy a camera for that price).
ROG:
Is it morally right to find a loophole in order to get out of a speeding charge when the driver has been speeding ?
Passed our local boys in blue or to be more accurate all in black standing in the bushes with speed gun at 5.50 am in the dark !!!
It was a 30, poor morals that they used there uniform to hide. 
strathdriver:
ROG:
Is it morally right to find a loophole in order to get out of a speeding charge when the driver has been speeding ?Passed our local boys in blue or to be more accurate all in black standing in the bushes with speed gun at 5.50 am in the dark !!!
It was a 30, poor morals that they used there uniform to hide.
If both they and you are each doing the respective jobs safely & legally then what is the problem ?
strathdriver:
ROG:
Is it morally right to find a loophole in order to get out of a speeding charge when the driver has been speeding ?Passed our local boys in blue or to be more accurate all in black standing in the bushes with speed gun at 5.50 am in the dark !!!
It was a 30, poor morals that they used there uniform to hide.
Yep, they are doing a potentially hazardous job and should be wearing full PPE including hi-viz vests. Where’s 'elf 'n safety when you need it?