[TiredGeek]

So if camera vans can get you from that sort of distance I'll have to change my driving style.
No more overtaking where I can see the road is clear for a good distance and booting it to overtake safely, I'll make sure I'm passing into blind bends therefore I'm far less likely to get nailed. Sure it's not safe, but ya know, needs must
(flame proof suite on)

I'm convinced the vans are out just for money. A64 Leeds to Scarborough, I see them all the time on there, never when it's raining though and you really should slow down. That's now the only time it's actually licence safe to pass the slow people.
Also, since when did the speed limit for cars on single carriageway drop from 60 to 50? Nobody seems able to do 60 anymore

[Ss66]

Slightly off topic travelling back up the M5 smart motorway bit by the m42 turn, saw one of the yellow side mounted cameras illuminate the sky after someone flew past. This when there were no speed restrictions in place.

[G82Dude]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I am told that if a ban is an option and you are trying to argue to keep your licence, turning up and being remorseful is a good idea. In those circumstances probably best not to say there were reasons why it was ok to do it....

If they are going to ban you, you must attend in person. They would likely start at points first though.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by F82Dude

If they are going to ban you, you must attend in person. They would likely start at points first though.

That's my understanding as well.

15+ years ago I got snapped by a camera van doing 71 in a 40. Completely unintentional in terms of the over-speed : I hadn't seen a speed limit sign and guessed that it was a 50 or 60 limit. Outskirts of town, straight road heading into the countryside, houses were fully fenced (back gardens faced the road) and WELL set back (say 50 yards) on each side. Late for a meeting as I'd initially been sent to the wrong site to make an important presentation. Directors waiting = gave it the beans.

I spoke with a solicitor who said a) plead guilty and make it clear that this is your first offence (which it was : clean licence) and that it was out of character, b) explain the circumstances (PA cocked-up my calendar), c) explain the road conditions (daytime, clear, dry), d) expect a ban if the court issues you a summons to attend in person.

6 points and £350, but times have changed since then. In today's world I'd expect a ban for >30 over the limit. You're just below that threshold so I'd expect points and a hefty fine.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by F82Dude

If they are going to ban you, you must attend in person. They would likely start at points first though.

You don't have to appear in court there is no requirement to do so, however a lawyer will advise that you do with them in attendance to present your case....if you want to stand any chance of not being banned.

[G82Dude]

Originally Posted by Wills2

You don't have to appear in court there is no requirement to do so, however a lawyer will advise that you do with them in attendance to present your case....if you want to stand any chance of not being banned.

You do if you are going to be banned (or you're a totter = potentially going to be banned). Thus, if you did not appear and a ban was the disposal (or you exceeded 11 points on your licence with the addition of the disposal), a summons will be issued for you to appear in court.

If the addition of 6 points (likely outcome) does not take the OP to 12, that will be it. If that takes the OP to 12 or more points, they must attend.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by F82Dude

You do if you are going to be banned (or you're a totter = potentially going to be banned).

If the addition of 6 points (likely outcome) does not take the OP to 12, that will be it. If that takes the OP to 12 or more points, they must attend.

I think the OP currently has a clean licence and hence runs no risk of a ban via the totting-up process. However, how will he know if he's potentially in line for a ban for the offence he's committed; will whatever paperwork he receives make it clear he needs to attend court because a ban's a possible outcome? Being honest I can't see the OP getting a ban; would have thought points and a hefty fine is more likely but I'm no expert in these things!

As for 89 in a 60, there but for the grace of god go I; when a camera has a range of at least 1,000 metres you've no chance of recognising it's a camera van - and reducing your speed - before you've been pinged. Only solutions are to either not stray too far over the limit or, if you fancy your chances fighting a prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice, fit a laser jammer. I haven't got the bottle for the latter so tend to do the former; I do genuinely try to stick to 30 and 40 limits anyway but nowadays I tend to only exceed the NSL and 70 limits by more than 10% if I'm very confident the coast is clear......

[DaveA]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I think the OP currently has a clean licence and hence runs no risk of a ban via the totting-up process. However, how will he know if he's potentially in line for a ban for the offence he's committed; will whatever paperwork he receives make it clear he needs to attend court because a ban's a possible outcome? Being honest I can't see the OP getting a ban; would have thought points and a hefty fine is more likely but I'm no expert in these things!

If an offence will be dealt with by a Court, instead of a fixed penalty (and, IIUC, for 89 in 60 there is a good chance that it will be dealt with by summons, not Fixed Penalty) then I believe the situation is that if a disqualification is considered to be a potential (or mandatory) outcome then the summoned person does have to attend Court (as they would be disqualified from the point of that outcome being handed down, rather than some days later informed by post)...

But where disqualification is not mandatory, and will not be considered as an option, then the summoned person does not need to attend in person and can plead by post...

So any summons and documentation issued form the court will be specific on whether or not plead by post is an option to them or not...

[Hanchurch]

Just seen this bad luck mate, I'm pretty sure it could easily happen to all of us.

[stefan4]

Originally Posted by DaveA

If an offence will be dealt with by a Court, instead of a fixed penalty (and, IIUC, for 89 in 60 there is a good chance that it will be dealt with by summons, not Fixed Penalty) then I believe the situation is that if a disqualification is considered to be a potential (or mandatory) outcome then the summoned person does have to attend Court (as they would be disqualified from the point of that outcome being handed down, rather than some days later informed by post)...

But where disqualification is not mandatory, and will not be considered as an option, then the summoned person does not need to attend in person and can plead by post...

So any summons and documentation issued form the court will be specific on whether or not plead by post is an option to them or not...

this is my understanding too. let's see what happens....

[stefan4]

Originally Posted by Hanchurch

Just seen this bad luck mate, I'm pretty sure it could easily happen to all of us.

thanks buddy

[Ronstein]

Originally Posted by Ss66

Slightly off topic travelling back up the M5 smart motorway bit by the m42 turn, saw one of the yellow side mounted cameras illuminate the sky after someone flew past. This when there were no speed restrictions in place.

Except that there is a 70mph speed limit in place and they're enforcing it everywhere there are smart motorways. My regular trips (M3, M4, M25, M42, M6) all feature this delightful innovation. They're hard to spot in places too, they've added the new (yellow) camera's on the left of the gantries out of line of site, and often hidden by overhanging trees etc..

[Kermit]

Originally Posted by Ronstein

Except that there is a 70mph speed limit in place and they're enforcing it everywhere there are smart motorways. My regular trips (M3, M4, M25, M42, M6) all feature this delightful innovation. They're hard to spot in places too, they've added the new (yellow) camera's on the left of the gantries out of line of site, and often hidden by overhanging trees etc..

HADECS3 cameras. Spottable in advance as they are usually accompanied by a separate bank of grey cameras usually about 200 yrds before the gantry with the actual yellow cameras on. Used for speed verification I think. Still difficult to spot in the dark.

[robbiep]

Originally Posted by Ronstein

Except that there is a 70mph speed limit in place and they're enforcing it everywhere there are smart motorways. My regular trips (M3, M4, M25, M42, M6) all feature this delightful innovation. They're hard to spot in places too, they've added the new (yellow) camera's on the left of the gantries out of line of site, and often hidden by overhanging trees etc..

Fucking hell, do 5 series not come with cruise control then ?

Tight bastards at BMW these days, putting that on the options list.

---------------------------

In all seriousness, set your cruise control at 75-78 on motorways. It's far less stressful driving that way, you get to your destination only marginally later, and you're far less tired doing so.

I used to drive on the motorways at 90-100, all the time. Then one day I tried sticking just over the limit on the speedo (so probably doing a real 68-70). I got to my destination 70 miles away (most of the journey was on motorway) a few minutes later than normal, but zero stress level, not continually scanning the bridges for cars or vans, not wondering if the black Mondeo was a police car ... just relaxing, and enjoying the drive.

I'm no angel. I'll readily admit, I occasionally speed on 'normal' A roads - that I know very well (including where the camera vans can park up). But in restricted areas, or on dual carriageways or motorways, I won't even consider it. One set the potential consequences don't bear thinking about, the other set there is too much enforcement to risk it.

[Edinburra]

Originally Posted by robbiep

Fucking hell, do 5 series not come with cruise control then ?

Tight bastards at BMW these days, putting that on the options list.

---------------------------

In all seriousness, set your cruise control at 75-78 on motorways. It's far less stressful driving that way, you get to your destination only marginally later, and you're far less tired doing so.

I used to drive on the motorways at 90-100, all the time. Then one day I tried sticking just over the limit on the speedo (so probably doing a real 68-70). I got to my destination 70 miles away (most of the journey was on motorway) a few minutes later than normal, but zero stress level, not continually scanning the bridges for cars or vans, not wondering if the black Mondeo was a police car ... just relaxing, and enjoying the drive.

I'm no angel. I'll readily admit, I occasionally speed on 'normal' A roads - that I know very well (including where the camera vans can park up). But in restricted areas, or on dual carriageways or motorways, I won't even consider it. One set the potential consequences don't bear thinking about, the other set there is too much enforcement to risk it.

Sensible advice, I do exactly the same things, much less stressful much more enjoyable.

[Wills2]

Any news OP? What does the paperwork say? Court attendance? Or plead guilty by post.

[NickyF]

Originally Posted by robbiep

Fucking hell, do 5 series not come with cruise control then ?

Tight bastards at BMW these days, putting that on the options list.

---------------------------

In all seriousness, set your cruise control at 75-78 on motorways. It's far less stressful driving that way, you get to your destination only marginally later, and you're far less tired doing so.

I used to drive on the motorways at 90-100, all the time. Then one day I tried sticking just over the limit on the speedo (so probably doing a real 68-70). I got to my destination 70 miles away (most of the journey was on motorway) a few minutes later than normal, but zero stress level, not continually scanning the bridges for cars or vans, not wondering if the black Mondeo was a police car ... just relaxing, and enjoying the drive.

I'm no angel. I'll readily admit, I occasionally speed on 'normal' A roads - that I know very well (including where the camera vans can park up). But in restricted areas, or on dual carriageways or motorways, I won't even consider it. One set the potential consequences don't bear thinking about, the other set there is too much enforcement to risk it.

It's the opposite for me. I find driving at 70 or 80 means you're in the pack of morons who aren't concentrating and normally you get tail gated. I also find myself getting bored and distracted when I travel at that speed for long distances. If I drive at 90 or 95 I have to be on my game, watching for dosy sods pulling out, monitoring for speed cameras, etc. I don't do it to get somewhere quicker, I honestly think it's safer.

I use Waze religiously, it's very good at warning you about all types of speed cameras. It works much better with Carplay than I thought it would too.

@op feel for you, as others have said this could easily happen to me. Hope you don't get too badly fined.

[RustyBitz]

Hey OP,

I feel for you, most of us have been there at some point.

I was caught doing 62 in 30 (13 years ago) absolutely disgusting speed I know. I was caught by a van and sent a NIP.

I sought advice from a motoring lawyer who suggested I'm looking at a 6-week ban at least. The best option was to ignore every letter from the police until they went after me for failing to provide the identity of the driver and drop the speeding prosecution.

This ended up in court I never attended but did plead guilty to failing to identify the driver. I got 6 points and £300 fine.

Always worth checking this route!

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by NickyF

It's the opposite for me. I find driving at 70 or 80 means you're in the pack of morons who aren't concentrating and normally you get tail gated. I also find myself getting bored and distracted when I travel at that speed for long distances. If I drive at 90 or 95 I have to be on my game, watching for dosy sods pulling out, monitoring for speed cameras, etc. I don't do it to get somewhere quicker, I honestly think it's safer.

I use Waze religiously, it's very good at warning you about all types of speed cameras. It works much better with Carplay than I thought it would too.

@op feel for you, as others have said this could easily happen to me. Hope you don't get too badly fined.

I'm in almost complete agreement with this.

Unless you're doing several hundred miles then you'll barely save much time, but the drive itself is much more enjoyable if you're nicking along at a faster rate. I think most cars have a natural cruising speed, where the engine and suspension just seems to be in a sweet spot, and for most of my cars that's been 80-100. That's a speed at which a motorway flows and becomes an enjoyable drive, anything less makes it feel like a boring chore.

However, cruising above 90 is very risky now, so I tend to sit between 80-90, slowing down below 80 where mobile vans may be present.

70 is a terrible speed to cruise at, always getting boxed in or else you need to hog the outer lane, which I'm not prepared to do.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by RustyBitz

I was caught doing 62 in 30 (13 years ago)

This ended up in court I never attended but did plead guilty to failing to identify the driver. I got 6 points and £300 fine.

An interesting line of defence but I suspect the penalty now might be rather more severe than it was 13 years ago....

[muffking]

Quite common apparently for those offences not serious enough to warrant a knock at the door. It was originally capped at 3 points until 2007 where it became a commonly used loophole, but was still only upped to a maximum of £1000 & 6 points in 2007 for fear of criminalising bad memory.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by muffking

Quite common apparently for those offences not serious enough to warrant a knock at the door. It was originally capped at 3 points until 2007 where it became a commonly used loophole, but was still only upped to a maximum of £1000 & 6 points in 2007 for fear of criminalising bad memory.

Not saying you're wrong but it doesn't make sense to me to allow someone to not name the driver and for the punishment to then be less than would be handed-out for the offence in question.

A £1k fine and 6 points is obviously a big deterrent for refusing to name the driver if the offence was (say) 40mph in a 30 limit. However, for doing the quoted 62 in a 30 I'd have thought the fine could be more than £1k (certainly for a high earner) and potentially it could be a ban rather than just points for being more than double the limit. In those circumstances would simply refusing to name the driver really be an option nowadays?