[Hanchurch]

Originally Posted by Manivxr

Don't speed. No fine. Simples.

[stefan4]

so, 2 days away from 6 months to the date of my offence and still had nothing through! Still fully expecting something imminently as I understand they only need to start proceedings within 6 months but can inform me later.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by DaveA

Ah, ok, I understand it properly now... and, also, I did not quite word it correctly as instead of saying "hit the brakes at the same time", I should have said "a hazard presented itself".... so sorry for that confusion...

It is about the distance travelled over the time periods...

At the point on the road that a car doing 30 stops, after a hazard presents itself, which is about 6 car lengths after the point where it was when the hazard presented itself (according to the tables in the link below), the car doing 60 from the same point, for the same hazard, has only just started to decelerate (because it travels twice as far as the other car in that same 1 second of thinking time)...

It is only actually about 14% into its deceleration at 6 car lengths, the 30 stopping distance, which, yes, equates to about 52 mph...

So, yes, if a hazard presented itself and a driver was able to stop safely from 30mph, the vehicle being decelerated in the same way from 60mph would still be travelling at 52mph at the point where it could have stopped from 30mph.

The top table here illustrates that...

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/l...ing-distances/

Your figures were broadly similar to the RAC tables and (discounting thinking time) the 30-0 time is the same as the 60-30 time, assuming the same rate of deceleration, but, obviously, the car travels much further over the 60-30 phase than the 30-0 phase... and also travels twice as far in the thinking time...

To get to 30, the car doing 60 travels 14 car lengths (4 thinking plus 10 slowing - a combination of 8 more than the 30-0 car in that same time) then does the 30-0 in another 4... both deceleration phases take the same time... the deceleration is constant, in terms of losing velocity at a linear rate, but the distance travelled per second is decreasing logarithmically as the velocity decreases...

A car traveling at 30mph is lethal compared to one sat stationary, best be totally safe and rule out all risk and not drive, infact don't go out at all, actually I'd also stay out of the kitchen and bathroom as well knives and slippery floors you see....

[Pequin]

Originally Posted by Wills2

A car traveling at 30mph is lethal compared to one sat stationary, best be totally safe and rule out all risk and not drive, infact don't go out at all, actually I'd also stay out of the kitchen and bathroom as well knives and slippery floors you see....

+1

If we all drove safely there would be no problem. Note safely not slowly.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by stefan4

so, 2 days away from 6 months to the date of my offence and still had nothing through! Still fully expecting something imminently as I understand they only need to start proceedings within 6 months but can inform me later.

You started this thread with a post on 11th September 2018 so aren't you way beyond the 6 months already? That said I'm not sure when the 6 months actually starts from; is it the date of the offence or from when you submit the paperwork confirming who the driver was in response to the NIP?

[stefan4]

that's American date format for some reason, it was the 9th November when I posted.

so it appears I have tempted fate, letter through the post today with an invitation to plead guilty by post under the 'single justice procedure' with a 33% reduction in fine. I could go to court but not sure it will be worth it.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by stefan4

so it appears I have tempted fate, letter through the post today with an invitation to plead guilty by post under the 'single justice procedure' with a 33% reduction in fine. I could go to court but not sure it will be worth it.

Sorry to hear that but sadly some good driving roads in North Yorkshire are now spoilt by the presence of camera vans and unfortunately you came across one; thus far I've managed to avoid getting done but there for the grace of god and all that.

Have you sought any legal advice on the matter? Andrew Thompson (aka agtlaw on Pistonheads) is a barrister based in Leeds and is very well thought of when it comes to dealing with these type of offences.

[stefan4]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Sorry to hear that but sadly some good driving roads in North Yorkshire are now spoilt by the presence of camera vans and unfortunately you came across one; thus far I've managed to avoid getting done but there for the grace of god and all that.

Have you sought any legal advice on the matter? Andrew Thompson (aka agtlaw on Pistonheads) is a barrister based in Leeds and is very well thought of when it comes to dealing with these type of offences.

I haven't and perhaps I should, I just don't see of theres anything to get out of, just need a groveling submission citing my previous immaculate driving history.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by stefan4

I haven't and perhaps I should, I just don't see of theres anything to get out of, just need a groveling submission citing my previous immaculate driving history.

Potentially it does sound like you could be a bit banged to rights but he may have advice that would help reduce the number of points and/or the fine? However, while I've no idea what he charges, I suspect good barristers don't come cheap....

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Potentially it does sound like you could be a bit banged to rights but he may have advice that would help reduce the number of points and/or the fine? However, while I've no idea what he charges, I suspect good barristers don't come cheap....

Seems like a waste of money to me. Likely to charge more than he saves in this case.

If it was me, and it was a couple of years ago, I'd plead by post, not bother with attending court, and take the outcome.

Turn up in court you might get less, but you could get banned if you're there, admittedly unlikely, but magistrates have bad days every now and then. You can't be banned in your absence, they'd have to adjourn it, which they'll never do for something like this.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Seems like a waste of money to me. Likely to charge more than he saves in this case.

If it was me, and it was a couple of years ago, I'd plead by post, not bother with attending court, and take the outcome.

Turn up in court you might get less, but you could get banned if you're there, admittedly unlikely, but magistrates have bad days every now and then. You can't be banned in your absence, they'd have to adjourn it, which they'll never do for something like this.

Yes, you could be right. Different if you've already got points and are possibly facing something like a totting-up ban but hopefully the OP's clean record - together with a guilty plea - will limit his suffering!

[stefan4]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Yes, you could be right. Different if you've already got points and are possibly facing something like a totting-up ban but hopefully the OP's clean record - together with a guilty plea - will limit his suffering!

fingers crossed!!!!!

[stefan4]

soooooo finally got the to the end of this process. unsurprisingly, 6 points and £800 fine .

A lesson learned, and a hole in my wallet but... it is what it is.

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by stefan4

soooooo finally got the to the end of this process. unsurprisingly, 6 points and £800 fine .

A lesson learned, and a hole in my wallet but... it is what it is.

89 in a 60 is band B .. 4-6 points so you got the maximum points.

[1 AKY]

This is why I'd prefer being dealt with by Road Traffic Police rather than the indiscriminate cameras. At least an officer is able to take into account road/weather/traffic conditions, the manner of driving etc. and if deemed appropriate, maybe show some leniency.

It's all about the £££ rather than trying to improve driving standards.

[stefan4]

Originally Posted by 1 AKY

This is why I'd prefer being dealt with by Road Traffic Police rather than the indiscriminate cameras. At least an officer is able to take into account road/weather/traffic conditions, the manner of driving etc. and if deemed appropriate, maybe show some leniency.

It's all about the £££ rather than trying to improve driving standards.

yup, it's entirely what I expected to be honest.

[Edinburra]

Castration?

[smorg99]

How do they work out the fine? I know it's a percentage of weekly earnings so do they request proof of earnings etc?

[stefan4]

Originally Posted by smorg99

How do they work out the fine? I know it's a percentage of weekly earnings so do they request proof of earnings etc?

it's a self declaration, but I wasnt about to lie and they can request evidence.

they ask for earning and a list of living costs etc.

[G82Dude]

Originally Posted by Hooded

89 in a 60 is band B .. 4-6 points so you got the maximum points.

Seems likely given the upper band is 90 (81-90).

In the absence of income details, court will assume you're on £440 a week (pre-tax), although soon to increase. If you're there, they ask. Lying/perverting the course of justice not such a good idea!

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by F82Dude

Seems likely given the upper band is 90 (81-90).

Yes, I made a statement, I didn't ask a question

[G82Dude]

Originally Posted by Hooded

Yes, I made a statement, I didn't ask a question

I made a qualified statement...